<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_15_0222213</id>
	<title>Wi-Fi Patent Victory Earns CSIRO $200 Million</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1255626300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bennyboy64 writes <i>"iTnews reports  <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/1545238&amp;tid=473">the patent battle</a> between Australia's CSIRO and 14 of the world's largest technology companies has gained the research organization <a href="http://itnews.com.au/News/158194,csiros-wi-fi-patent-victory-earns-200m-and-counting.aspx">$200 million from out of court settlements</a>. CSIRO executive director of commercial, Nigel Poole, said the CSIRO were wanting to license their technology further, stating that he 'urged' companies using it to come forward and seek a license. 'We believe that there are many more companies that are using CSIRO's technology and it's our desire to license the technology further,' Poole said.'We would urge companies that are currently selling devices that have 802.11 a,g or n to contact CSIRO and to seek a license because we believe they are using our technology.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bennyboy64 writes " iTnews reports the patent battle between Australia 's CSIRO and 14 of the world 's largest technology companies has gained the research organization $ 200 million from out of court settlements .
CSIRO executive director of commercial , Nigel Poole , said the CSIRO were wanting to license their technology further , stating that he 'urged ' companies using it to come forward and seek a license .
'We believe that there are many more companies that are using CSIRO 's technology and it 's our desire to license the technology further, ' Poole said .
'We would urge companies that are currently selling devices that have 802.11 a,g or n to contact CSIRO and to seek a license because we believe they are using our technology .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bennyboy64 writes "iTnews reports  the patent battle between Australia's CSIRO and 14 of the world's largest technology companies has gained the research organization $200 million from out of court settlements.
CSIRO executive director of commercial, Nigel Poole, said the CSIRO were wanting to license their technology further, stating that he 'urged' companies using it to come forward and seek a license.
'We believe that there are many more companies that are using CSIRO's technology and it's our desire to license the technology further,' Poole said.
'We would urge companies that are currently selling devices that have 802.11 a,g or n to contact CSIRO and to seek a license because we believe they are using our technology.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754491</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1255599180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government announced that CSIRO's funding allocation for next year will be reduced by a one-off amount of $200 million.</p><p>The savings will be used to fund a series of very large plaques in school gyms where, by pure coincidence, most polling booths are set up during federal elections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government announced that CSIRO 's funding allocation for next year will be reduced by a one-off amount of $ 200 million.The savings will be used to fund a series of very large plaques in school gyms where , by pure coincidence , most polling booths are set up during federal elections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government announced that CSIRO's funding allocation for next year will be reduced by a one-off amount of $200 million.The savings will be used to fund a series of very large plaques in school gyms where, by pure coincidence, most polling booths are set up during federal elections.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754437</id>
	<title>Re:Only fair</title>
	<author>Jimbookis</author>
	<datestamp>1255598580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was an article on the ABC show Catalyst last week.  Apparently 802.11g/n has its roots in radio astronomy.

You can see the boffins for real on these vodcasts:

<a href="http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/geo/catalyst/catalyst\_2009\_ep29.mp4" title="abc.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/geo/catalyst/catalyst\_2009\_ep29.mp4</a> [abc.net.au]
<a href="http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/geo/catalyst/catalyst\_2009\_ep29.wmv" title="abc.net.au" rel="nofollow">http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/geo/catalyst/catalyst\_2009\_ep29.wmv</a> [abc.net.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an article on the ABC show Catalyst last week .
Apparently 802.11g/n has its roots in radio astronomy .
You can see the boffins for real on these vodcasts : http : //mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/geo/catalyst/catalyst \ _2009 \ _ep29.mp4 [ abc.net.au ] http : //mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/geo/catalyst/catalyst \ _2009 \ _ep29.wmv [ abc.net.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an article on the ABC show Catalyst last week.
Apparently 802.11g/n has its roots in radio astronomy.
You can see the boffins for real on these vodcasts:

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/geo/catalyst/catalyst\_2009\_ep29.mp4 [abc.net.au]
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/geo/catalyst/catalyst\_2009\_ep29.wmv [abc.net.au]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755185</id>
	<title>Prior Art?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255609320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why isn't packet radio prior art for this?  People were sharing bits over radio long before wifi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't packet radio prior art for this ?
People were sharing bits over radio long before wifi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't packet radio prior art for this?
People were sharing bits over radio long before wifi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754413</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar has a purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255598280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well seen!</p><p>You're the king of grammarly!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well seen ! You 're the king of grammarly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well seen!You're the king of grammarly!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753527</id>
	<title>Are you fucking serious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255543680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gay.<br>oh BSD is dead and Beowol.. whatever...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gay.oh BSD is dead and Beowol.. whatever.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gay.oh BSD is dead and Beowol.. whatever...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754135</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives to 802.11a,g,n</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1255637940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What do you bet there are a few alternatives coming down the pipe soon?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Given how long "N" took to reach standardisation I'd be surprised if any alternative happened "soon".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you bet there are a few alternatives coming down the pipe soon ?
Given how long " N " took to reach standardisation I 'd be surprised if any alternative happened " soon " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you bet there are a few alternatives coming down the pipe soon?
Given how long "N" took to reach standardisation I'd be surprised if any alternative happened "soon".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754285</id>
	<title>Re:how is this fair?</title>
	<author>tg123</author>
	<datestamp>1255639860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Government-owned organizations are paid for by taxes.  Why should I pay once for the invention by taxes and then again through licensing fees?</p></div><p>Its my taxes buddy (assuming your not australian) and I would like you to pony up the cash.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government-owned organizations are paid for by taxes .
Why should I pay once for the invention by taxes and then again through licensing fees ? Its my taxes buddy ( assuming your not australian ) and I would like you to pony up the cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government-owned organizations are paid for by taxes.
Why should I pay once for the invention by taxes and then again through licensing fees?Its my taxes buddy (assuming your not australian) and I would like you to pony up the cash.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754329</id>
	<title>Horraay!</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1255640340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for Fast Fourier Transform and multi spectrum rf echo cancelation!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>for Fast Fourier Transform and multi spectrum rf echo cancelation ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for Fast Fourier Transform and multi spectrum rf echo cancelation!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29761015</id>
	<title>idea</title>
	<author>Chewbacon</author>
	<datestamp>1255637580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's make our own wireless standard, give it away to CSIRO and then charge them for it some years later.  Yeah, screw those guys!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's make our own wireless standard , give it away to CSIRO and then charge them for it some years later .
Yeah , screw those guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's make our own wireless standard, give it away to CSIRO and then charge them for it some years later.
Yeah, screw those guys!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754609</id>
	<title>Re:Only fair</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1255601100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Pat on the back for CSIRO. One of the ways government-owned research organizations can expect to survive is by monetizing inventions - when companies like Lucent, Buffalo, Linksys, Apple etc. all make a killing off this stuff and didn't invest in its development it is only fair they are forced to pay up.</p></div></blockquote><p>All those companies don't pay taxes or their employees don't?</p><p>In WW2, the government nullified many radio patents to get the innovation going real fast.  They can also don't have to follow patents internally, since patents are a monopoly protection they give to companies - not an inherent right.</p><p>But will the same government now copyright everything they do as well (government written stuff is public domain)?  And what about various genome projects that are government funded?  I fear that sticking it to a company or three will be very expensive in the end.</p><p>We already have far too many publicly-funded universities trying to make everything propietary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pat on the back for CSIRO .
One of the ways government-owned research organizations can expect to survive is by monetizing inventions - when companies like Lucent , Buffalo , Linksys , Apple etc .
all make a killing off this stuff and did n't invest in its development it is only fair they are forced to pay up.All those companies do n't pay taxes or their employees do n't ? In WW2 , the government nullified many radio patents to get the innovation going real fast .
They can also do n't have to follow patents internally , since patents are a monopoly protection they give to companies - not an inherent right.But will the same government now copyright everything they do as well ( government written stuff is public domain ) ?
And what about various genome projects that are government funded ?
I fear that sticking it to a company or three will be very expensive in the end.We already have far too many publicly-funded universities trying to make everything propietary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pat on the back for CSIRO.
One of the ways government-owned research organizations can expect to survive is by monetizing inventions - when companies like Lucent, Buffalo, Linksys, Apple etc.
all make a killing off this stuff and didn't invest in its development it is only fair they are forced to pay up.All those companies don't pay taxes or their employees don't?In WW2, the government nullified many radio patents to get the innovation going real fast.
They can also don't have to follow patents internally, since patents are a monopoly protection they give to companies - not an inherent right.But will the same government now copyright everything they do as well (government written stuff is public domain)?
And what about various genome projects that are government funded?
I fear that sticking it to a company or three will be very expensive in the end.We already have far too many publicly-funded universities trying to make everything propietary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755049</id>
	<title>OK, then, please pay the U.S. for ...</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1255607640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who\_invented\_the\_Internet" title="answers.com">THE INTERNET</a> [answers.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THE INTERNET [ answers.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THE INTERNET [answers.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29763715</id>
	<title>Re:Are you fucking serious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255607220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... LY!  It's "seriousLY!"</p><p>And my answer is "Nawww, it's for fun."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... LY ! It 's " seriousLY !
" And my answer is " Nawww , it 's for fun .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... LY!  It's "seriousLY!
"And my answer is "Nawww, it's for fun.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753777</id>
	<title>Desire to troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obvious troll is...<br>obvious</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obvious troll is...obvious</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obvious troll is...obvious</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753721</id>
	<title>Re:Desire to license</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1255545900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cisco is absent because they are a valid licensee.  <a href="http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2008/10/different\_interpretation\_of\_buffalo\_csiro\_patent\_appeal.html" title="wifinetnews.com">http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2008/10/different\_interpretation\_of\_buffalo\_csiro\_patent\_appeal.html</a> [wifinetnews.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cisco is absent because they are a valid licensee .
http : //wifinetnews.com/archives/2008/10/different \ _interpretation \ _of \ _buffalo \ _csiro \ _patent \ _appeal.html [ wifinetnews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cisco is absent because they are a valid licensee.
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2008/10/different\_interpretation\_of\_buffalo\_csiro\_patent\_appeal.html [wifinetnews.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29758681</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar has a purpose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255627140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He obviously directs short television advertisements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He obviously directs short television advertisements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He obviously directs short television advertisements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753585</id>
	<title>Patent trolls</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1255544280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patent trolls seems to pop up everywhere.</p><p>Isn't this an indication that the system is severely flawed when someone pops up very late to the table and claims that they own it?</p><p>So limit the patent possibility to physical inventions that you can touch. Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again, and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patent trolls seems to pop up everywhere.Is n't this an indication that the system is severely flawed when someone pops up very late to the table and claims that they own it ? So limit the patent possibility to physical inventions that you can touch .
Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again , and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patent trolls seems to pop up everywhere.Isn't this an indication that the system is severely flawed when someone pops up very late to the table and claims that they own it?So limit the patent possibility to physical inventions that you can touch.
Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again, and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754639</id>
	<title>Re:Patent trolls</title>
	<author>melatonin</author>
	<datestamp>1255601520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More at issue is not the fact that they have the patent, but that they're trying to suck money out of everyone by participating in the IEEE and not signing a Letter of Assurance. A Letter of Assurance doesn't mean that you won't make money or won't sue, just that you'll charge reasonable royalties (IEEE's all about co-operation). Their requested royalty rates are <a href="http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/09/dark-australian-patent-cloud-looms-over-802-11n-spec.ars" title="arstechnica.com">several dollars per sale</a> [arstechnica.com], which is stupid when you're talking about a technology that should be used in the cheapest devices. They signed a letter of assurance for 802.11a but kept silent on g and n. Then they started suing when g was adopted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More at issue is not the fact that they have the patent , but that they 're trying to suck money out of everyone by participating in the IEEE and not signing a Letter of Assurance .
A Letter of Assurance does n't mean that you wo n't make money or wo n't sue , just that you 'll charge reasonable royalties ( IEEE 's all about co-operation ) .
Their requested royalty rates are several dollars per sale [ arstechnica.com ] , which is stupid when you 're talking about a technology that should be used in the cheapest devices .
They signed a letter of assurance for 802.11a but kept silent on g and n. Then they started suing when g was adopted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More at issue is not the fact that they have the patent, but that they're trying to suck money out of everyone by participating in the IEEE and not signing a Letter of Assurance.
A Letter of Assurance doesn't mean that you won't make money or won't sue, just that you'll charge reasonable royalties (IEEE's all about co-operation).
Their requested royalty rates are several dollars per sale [arstechnica.com], which is stupid when you're talking about a technology that should be used in the cheapest devices.
They signed a letter of assurance for 802.11a but kept silent on g and n. Then they started suing when g was adopted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753677</id>
	<title>Re:CSIRO now in budget surplus</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1255545300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It was also the first time the research organization had seen a surplus in its financial reporting</p></div></blockquote><p>
Er, the article you linked to says it's the biggest ever and twice the size of last years, not the first surplus ever.
<br> <br>
The interesting (to me) figure in the article is that they have increased the number of scientists employed by 6\% over the last 5 years, bringing it to a total of 1837.
We hear a lot about the "brain drain" so it's nice to see growth in scientific support.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was also the first time the research organization had seen a surplus in its financial reporting Er , the article you linked to says it 's the biggest ever and twice the size of last years , not the first surplus ever .
The interesting ( to me ) figure in the article is that they have increased the number of scientists employed by 6 \ % over the last 5 years , bringing it to a total of 1837 .
We hear a lot about the " brain drain " so it 's nice to see growth in scientific support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was also the first time the research organization had seen a surplus in its financial reporting
Er, the article you linked to says it's the biggest ever and twice the size of last years, not the first surplus ever.
The interesting (to me) figure in the article is that they have increased the number of scientists employed by 6\% over the last 5 years, bringing it to a total of 1837.
We hear a lot about the "brain drain" so it's nice to see growth in scientific support.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29759473</id>
	<title>Please help me to understand...</title>
	<author>nathana</author>
	<datestamp>1255630740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I see all of the posts coming to the defense of CSIRO, and I get them.  I truly do.</p><p>However, there is still one thing I do not get: Why is CSIRO going (and why have they been allowed to go) after the companies selling the final piece of complete, end-user hardware in a shrink-wrap box, rather than the chipset manufacturers themselves?  Isn't it Broadcom, Atheros, Intel, Ralink, Realtek, etc., who failed to license the technology?  It seems to me that the company who takes the chipset and slaps their name on the front of a plastic box that contains it has become an unwitting victim in all of this.  Most of these companies don't even really have their own designs.  The original Broadcom reference design was tweaked by Gemtek and then rebranded by Linksys, Buffalo, and many, many others, for example...most of these companies buy their stuff from an ODM and barely do any of their own actual engineering and are just sales and marketing warehouses.</p><p>So why are all the actual chipset manufacturers getting off scott-free?</p><p>-- Nathan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I see all of the posts coming to the defense of CSIRO , and I get them .
I truly do.However , there is still one thing I do not get : Why is CSIRO going ( and why have they been allowed to go ) after the companies selling the final piece of complete , end-user hardware in a shrink-wrap box , rather than the chipset manufacturers themselves ?
Is n't it Broadcom , Atheros , Intel , Ralink , Realtek , etc. , who failed to license the technology ?
It seems to me that the company who takes the chipset and slaps their name on the front of a plastic box that contains it has become an unwitting victim in all of this .
Most of these companies do n't even really have their own designs .
The original Broadcom reference design was tweaked by Gemtek and then rebranded by Linksys , Buffalo , and many , many others , for example...most of these companies buy their stuff from an ODM and barely do any of their own actual engineering and are just sales and marketing warehouses.So why are all the actual chipset manufacturers getting off scott-free ? -- Nathan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I see all of the posts coming to the defense of CSIRO, and I get them.
I truly do.However, there is still one thing I do not get: Why is CSIRO going (and why have they been allowed to go) after the companies selling the final piece of complete, end-user hardware in a shrink-wrap box, rather than the chipset manufacturers themselves?
Isn't it Broadcom, Atheros, Intel, Ralink, Realtek, etc., who failed to license the technology?
It seems to me that the company who takes the chipset and slaps their name on the front of a plastic box that contains it has become an unwitting victim in all of this.
Most of these companies don't even really have their own designs.
The original Broadcom reference design was tweaked by Gemtek and then rebranded by Linksys, Buffalo, and many, many others, for example...most of these companies buy their stuff from an ODM and barely do any of their own actual engineering and are just sales and marketing warehouses.So why are all the actual chipset manufacturers getting off scott-free?-- Nathan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754393</id>
	<title>TCP/IP's history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255598040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a valid patent? How does it compare then if BSD patented their government-funded work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a valid patent ?
How does it compare then if BSD patented their government-funded work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a valid patent?
How does it compare then if BSD patented their government-funded work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754997</id>
	<title>As an Australian scince student...</title>
	<author>ReneeJade</author>
	<datestamp>1255607040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not for letting patents mess around with science and technology, but they do have their place. A lot of members of Internet communities seem to damn patents and copyrighting because it is so harmful to software engineering. And yes, I DO think that copyrighting and closed-source development have no place in software engineering, because keeping that kind of work hushed up does not benefit the science. But as an Australian studying both physics and software engineering I feel that there is a big difference between propriety software that has everyone on the Internet outraged and the licensing of technology. I feel that the CSIRO are an organisation that Australia can be proud of and some of their research will benefit human kind long after any patents have expired. If I end up working for the CSIRO I would want my work to be licensed. Not for the money or because it would be my "right", but because it would help with the continuation of excellent scientific research in Australia and Earth as a whole. If, however, I end up working as a programmer, I would rather give my code away and go hungry than have it all hushed up for the sake of a money hungry corporation, because transparency in software is beneficial to the science. That is not to say that software shouldn't be licensable or sellable, just that it should be visible - as the CSIRO's technologies often are. So before you all start squabbling over who should pay an extra five bucks for a wiFi card, think about what you're buying for the future. Outrage over copyrighting that stunts progress is fair, outrage over investing a few dollars into the advancement of technology is petty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not for letting patents mess around with science and technology , but they do have their place .
A lot of members of Internet communities seem to damn patents and copyrighting because it is so harmful to software engineering .
And yes , I DO think that copyrighting and closed-source development have no place in software engineering , because keeping that kind of work hushed up does not benefit the science .
But as an Australian studying both physics and software engineering I feel that there is a big difference between propriety software that has everyone on the Internet outraged and the licensing of technology .
I feel that the CSIRO are an organisation that Australia can be proud of and some of their research will benefit human kind long after any patents have expired .
If I end up working for the CSIRO I would want my work to be licensed .
Not for the money or because it would be my " right " , but because it would help with the continuation of excellent scientific research in Australia and Earth as a whole .
If , however , I end up working as a programmer , I would rather give my code away and go hungry than have it all hushed up for the sake of a money hungry corporation , because transparency in software is beneficial to the science .
That is not to say that software should n't be licensable or sellable , just that it should be visible - as the CSIRO 's technologies often are .
So before you all start squabbling over who should pay an extra five bucks for a wiFi card , think about what you 're buying for the future .
Outrage over copyrighting that stunts progress is fair , outrage over investing a few dollars into the advancement of technology is petty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not for letting patents mess around with science and technology, but they do have their place.
A lot of members of Internet communities seem to damn patents and copyrighting because it is so harmful to software engineering.
And yes, I DO think that copyrighting and closed-source development have no place in software engineering, because keeping that kind of work hushed up does not benefit the science.
But as an Australian studying both physics and software engineering I feel that there is a big difference between propriety software that has everyone on the Internet outraged and the licensing of technology.
I feel that the CSIRO are an organisation that Australia can be proud of and some of their research will benefit human kind long after any patents have expired.
If I end up working for the CSIRO I would want my work to be licensed.
Not for the money or because it would be my "right", but because it would help with the continuation of excellent scientific research in Australia and Earth as a whole.
If, however, I end up working as a programmer, I would rather give my code away and go hungry than have it all hushed up for the sake of a money hungry corporation, because transparency in software is beneficial to the science.
That is not to say that software shouldn't be licensable or sellable, just that it should be visible - as the CSIRO's technologies often are.
So before you all start squabbling over who should pay an extra five bucks for a wiFi card, think about what you're buying for the future.
Outrage over copyrighting that stunts progress is fair, outrage over investing a few dollars into the advancement of technology is petty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753765</id>
	<title>wifi allergies</title>
	<author>hydromike2</author>
	<datestamp>1255546500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ah, so I should be sending CSIRO the medical bills for my wifi allergy shots!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ah , so I should be sending CSIRO the medical bills for my wifi allergy shots !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ah, so I should be sending CSIRO the medical bills for my wifi allergy shots!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754707</id>
	<title>Re:Patent trolls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255602300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>exactly. tonnes of other companies were trying to do wifi and failed.<br>csiro got it right. and for it they should get props.<br>here's a video for anyone wanting a bit of background on it:<br>http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly .
tonnes of other companies were trying to do wifi and failed.csiro got it right .
and for it they should get props.here 's a video for anyone wanting a bit of background on it : http : //www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly.
tonnes of other companies were trying to do wifi and failed.csiro got it right.
and for it they should get props.here's a video for anyone wanting a bit of background on it:http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755125</id>
	<title>Re:how is this fair?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255608660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't want to pay royalties to CSIRO dont buy the LUXURY devices</p><p>The wifi device isnt exactly bread and milk.</p><p>Every dollar CSIRO makes from foreign buyers adds to research in Australias interest in horticulture flora and fauna and health<br>the real kicker they will achieve more with less of your tax dollars</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't want to pay royalties to CSIRO dont buy the LUXURY devicesThe wifi device isnt exactly bread and milk.Every dollar CSIRO makes from foreign buyers adds to research in Australias interest in horticulture flora and fauna and healththe real kicker they will achieve more with less of your tax dollars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't want to pay royalties to CSIRO dont buy the LUXURY devicesThe wifi device isnt exactly bread and milk.Every dollar CSIRO makes from foreign buyers adds to research in Australias interest in horticulture flora and fauna and healththe real kicker they will achieve more with less of your tax dollars</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753803</id>
	<title>Re:Only fair</title>
	<author>rigolo</author>
	<datestamp>1255547040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>when companies like Lucent  [snip]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. didn't invest in its development it is only fair they are forced to pay up.</p></div><p>mmmm did Lucent (or actually AT&amp;T or actually NCR) not invest in the wifi development?? You beter check your history books. Wi-Fi was "invented" and developed by Lucent/AT&amp;T/NCR in the Netherlands in 1990. They were the first to bring a WiFi product to the market. So you can not claim they did not invest in it's development.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>when companies like Lucent [ snip ] .. did n't invest in its development it is only fair they are forced to pay up.mmmm did Lucent ( or actually AT&amp;T or actually NCR ) not invest in the wifi development ? ?
You beter check your history books .
Wi-Fi was " invented " and developed by Lucent/AT&amp;T/NCR in the Netherlands in 1990 .
They were the first to bring a WiFi product to the market .
So you can not claim they did not invest in it 's development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when companies like Lucent  [snip] .. didn't invest in its development it is only fair they are forced to pay up.mmmm did Lucent (or actually AT&amp;T or actually NCR) not invest in the wifi development??
You beter check your history books.
Wi-Fi was "invented" and developed by Lucent/AT&amp;T/NCR in the Netherlands in 1990.
They were the first to bring a WiFi product to the market.
So you can not claim they did not invest in it's development.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753639</id>
	<title>Re:Patent trolls</title>
	<author>nickd</author>
	<datestamp>1255544820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that they aren't patent trolls - they are the Australian Government's science organisation - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), they have been in this battle for quite a while.</p><p>Read up on the WLAN stuff here <a href="http://www.csiro.gov.au/science/wireless-LANs.html" title="csiro.gov.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.csiro.gov.au/science/wireless-LANs.html</a> [csiro.gov.au]</p><p>Then get back to us when you think that inventing wireless networking technology is easy and doesn't warrant the possibility of being patented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that they are n't patent trolls - they are the Australian Government 's science organisation - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation ( CSIRO ) , they have been in this battle for quite a while.Read up on the WLAN stuff here http : //www.csiro.gov.au/science/wireless-LANs.html [ csiro.gov.au ] Then get back to us when you think that inventing wireless networking technology is easy and does n't warrant the possibility of being patented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that they aren't patent trolls - they are the Australian Government's science organisation - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), they have been in this battle for quite a while.Read up on the WLAN stuff here http://www.csiro.gov.au/science/wireless-LANs.html [csiro.gov.au]Then get back to us when you think that inventing wireless networking technology is easy and doesn't warrant the possibility of being patented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753579</id>
	<title>Are patents worth it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255544280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya the idea has been beat to death but the article made an interesting comment ".'We would urge companies that are currently selling devices that have 802.11 a,g or n to contact CSIRO and to seek a license because we believe they are using our technology.'" One of the arguments for patents is that it encourages individuals and firms to innovate in order so they can receive a financial gain via a patent. But what about the situation where you are accidentally violating a patent. Yes this is a very slippery slope situation but really is there any advantage to society to preventing an entity from using something they would have re-invented any way <p>? A example of another way would patents could be held to mitigate this would be. That the patent holder has all rights to sell and license a technology however a co-inventer who developed the technology independently has the right to produce and sell goods and services using the technology.  Like I said its a slippery slope but patent law is already complicated enough so its just a drop in a bucket</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya the idea has been beat to death but the article made an interesting comment " .
'We would urge companies that are currently selling devices that have 802.11 a,g or n to contact CSIRO and to seek a license because we believe they are using our technology .
' " One of the arguments for patents is that it encourages individuals and firms to innovate in order so they can receive a financial gain via a patent .
But what about the situation where you are accidentally violating a patent .
Yes this is a very slippery slope situation but really is there any advantage to society to preventing an entity from using something they would have re-invented any way ?
A example of another way would patents could be held to mitigate this would be .
That the patent holder has all rights to sell and license a technology however a co-inventer who developed the technology independently has the right to produce and sell goods and services using the technology .
Like I said its a slippery slope but patent law is already complicated enough so its just a drop in a bucket</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya the idea has been beat to death but the article made an interesting comment ".
'We would urge companies that are currently selling devices that have 802.11 a,g or n to contact CSIRO and to seek a license because we believe they are using our technology.
'" One of the arguments for patents is that it encourages individuals and firms to innovate in order so they can receive a financial gain via a patent.
But what about the situation where you are accidentally violating a patent.
Yes this is a very slippery slope situation but really is there any advantage to society to preventing an entity from using something they would have re-invented any way ?
A example of another way would patents could be held to mitigate this would be.
That the patent holder has all rights to sell and license a technology however a co-inventer who developed the technology independently has the right to produce and sell goods and services using the technology.
Like I said its a slippery slope but patent law is already complicated enough so its just a drop in a bucket</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753591</id>
	<title>CSIRO now in budget surplus</title>
	<author>bennyboy64</author>
	<datestamp>1255544340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was also the first time the research organization had seen a surplus in its financial reporting
<a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26209952-12377,00.html" title="news.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26209952-12377,00.html</a> [news.com.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was also the first time the research organization had seen a surplus in its financial reporting http : //www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26209952-12377,00.html [ news.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was also the first time the research organization had seen a surplus in its financial reporting
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26209952-12377,00.html [news.com.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754295</id>
	<title>Samzenpus Trolls Slashdot's Australian Membership</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255639980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Samzenpus successfully trolls Slashdot's Australian membership, Slashdot's ad revenue increases accordingly from the resultant bleating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Samzenpus successfully trolls Slashdot 's Australian membership , Slashdot 's ad revenue increases accordingly from the resultant bleating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Samzenpus successfully trolls Slashdot's Australian membership, Slashdot's ad revenue increases accordingly from the resultant bleating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754855</id>
	<title>Sorry, but I call BS</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1255605180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the taxpayer funds the research, the taxpayer owns the results. Nobody should be able to patent something that came about because of taxpayer-funded research.</p><p>Furthermore, patented technology shouldn't be allowed to make it into "standards." "Standards" should be open and unencumbered. It's fundamentally anti-competitive to standardize on encumbered technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the taxpayer funds the research , the taxpayer owns the results .
Nobody should be able to patent something that came about because of taxpayer-funded research.Furthermore , patented technology should n't be allowed to make it into " standards .
" " Standards " should be open and unencumbered .
It 's fundamentally anti-competitive to standardize on encumbered technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the taxpayer funds the research, the taxpayer owns the results.
Nobody should be able to patent something that came about because of taxpayer-funded research.Furthermore, patented technology shouldn't be allowed to make it into "standards.
" "Standards" should be open and unencumbered.
It's fundamentally anti-competitive to standardize on encumbered technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753937</id>
	<title>how is this fair?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255548600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government-owned organizations are paid for by taxes.  Why should I pay once for the invention by taxes and then again through licensing fees?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government-owned organizations are paid for by taxes .
Why should I pay once for the invention by taxes and then again through licensing fees ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government-owned organizations are paid for by taxes.
Why should I pay once for the invention by taxes and then again through licensing fees?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754719</id>
	<title>Ahh, I see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255602540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No b...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No b.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No b...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754187</id>
	<title>Grammar has a purpose</title>
	<author>Strange Ranger</author>
	<datestamp>1255638660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the summary, doesn't it bother anyone that Nigel Poole isn't the director of any<b>thing</b>.  He's the director of an adjective or adverb.  "Director of Commercial". <br> <br>Director of Commercial WHAT?  Commercial Espionage?  Commercial Litigation?  Commercial Applications of Research?  Or maybe he's Director of Television Commercials?  Who can tell?</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary , does n't it bother anyone that Nigel Poole is n't the director of anything .
He 's the director of an adjective or adverb .
" Director of Commercial " .
Director of Commercial WHAT ?
Commercial Espionage ?
Commercial Litigation ?
Commercial Applications of Research ?
Or maybe he 's Director of Television Commercials ?
Who can tell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary, doesn't it bother anyone that Nigel Poole isn't the director of anything.
He's the director of an adjective or adverb.
"Director of Commercial".
Director of Commercial WHAT?
Commercial Espionage?
Commercial Litigation?
Commercial Applications of Research?
Or maybe he's Director of Television Commercials?
Who can tell?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755463</id>
	<title>Re:wifi allergies</title>
	<author>Therefore I am</author>
	<datestamp>1255612320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those imaginary diseases are tough to cure. You start with the head first and rigorously apply a sycamore mallet. 12 to 15 good shots usually brings permanent relief. If not, then there is the road-roller treatment. Most feel a little flattened after that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those imaginary diseases are tough to cure .
You start with the head first and rigorously apply a sycamore mallet .
12 to 15 good shots usually brings permanent relief .
If not , then there is the road-roller treatment .
Most feel a little flattened after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those imaginary diseases are tough to cure.
You start with the head first and rigorously apply a sycamore mallet.
12 to 15 good shots usually brings permanent relief.
If not, then there is the road-roller treatment.
Most feel a little flattened after that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753683</id>
	<title>Speaking of trolls</title>
	<author>Jeremy Visser</author>
	<datestamp>1255545300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't this an indication that the system is severely flawed when someone pops up very late to the table and claims that they own it?</p><p>[...] Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again, and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another?</p></div><p>Speaking of trolls, you are one yourself. Before you mod me into oblivion, hear me out.</p><p>In your post, you seem to claim that (1) CSIRO is a patent troll; and that (2) the patent is a software patent, thus is unethical. Both claims are patently false. (ha ha)</p><p>For starters, to address claim (1), CSIRO is <em>not</em> a patent troll. What is a patent troll? A patent troll is an organisation that exists only to accumulate patents (and make a profit off royalties). <strong>CSIRO is not a patent troll!</strong> They are an Australian Government-funded organisation that does <em>real research</em>. They actually researched and patented the technology back in the early '90s. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm" title="abc.net.au">(Source)</a> [abc.net.au] </p><p>To address claim (2), the patent in question is <strong>not a software patent</strong>! Thus the entire basis for your argument...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again, and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another?</p></div><p>...is completely baseless. The patent in question covers the duplication and redundancy of radio waves, so it is obviously not a software patent. Basically the patent covers the way modern WiFi works, in that instead of serial (just one radio wave with error correction), parallel and redundant streams are sent, which allows you to have much greater bandwidth without losing the reliability. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm" title="abc.net.au">(And yes, that source again)</a> [abc.net.au] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this an indication that the system is severely flawed when someone pops up very late to the table and claims that they own it ? [ .. .
] Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again , and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another ? Speaking of trolls , you are one yourself .
Before you mod me into oblivion , hear me out.In your post , you seem to claim that ( 1 ) CSIRO is a patent troll ; and that ( 2 ) the patent is a software patent , thus is unethical .
Both claims are patently false .
( ha ha ) For starters , to address claim ( 1 ) , CSIRO is not a patent troll .
What is a patent troll ?
A patent troll is an organisation that exists only to accumulate patents ( and make a profit off royalties ) .
CSIRO is not a patent troll !
They are an Australian Government-funded organisation that does real research .
They actually researched and patented the technology back in the early '90s .
( Source ) [ abc.net.au ] To address claim ( 2 ) , the patent in question is not a software patent !
Thus the entire basis for your argument...Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again , and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another ? ...is completely baseless .
The patent in question covers the duplication and redundancy of radio waves , so it is obviously not a software patent .
Basically the patent covers the way modern WiFi works , in that instead of serial ( just one radio wave with error correction ) , parallel and redundant streams are sent , which allows you to have much greater bandwidth without losing the reliability .
( And yes , that source again ) [ abc.net.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this an indication that the system is severely flawed when someone pops up very late to the table and claims that they own it?[...
] Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again, and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another?Speaking of trolls, you are one yourself.
Before you mod me into oblivion, hear me out.In your post, you seem to claim that (1) CSIRO is a patent troll; and that (2) the patent is a software patent, thus is unethical.
Both claims are patently false.
(ha ha)For starters, to address claim (1), CSIRO is not a patent troll.
What is a patent troll?
A patent troll is an organisation that exists only to accumulate patents (and make a profit off royalties).
CSIRO is not a patent troll!
They are an Australian Government-funded organisation that does real research.
They actually researched and patented the technology back in the early '90s.
(Source) [abc.net.au] To address claim (2), the patent in question is not a software patent!
Thus the entire basis for your argument...Softwares and methods are too easy to re-invent all over again, and who can tell if a certain solution has been available before and then silently put to the grave for one reason or another?...is completely baseless.
The patent in question covers the duplication and redundancy of radio waves, so it is obviously not a software patent.
Basically the patent covers the way modern WiFi works, in that instead of serial (just one radio wave with error correction), parallel and redundant streams are sent, which allows you to have much greater bandwidth without losing the reliability.
(And yes, that source again) [abc.net.au] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29756135</id>
	<title>Obvious?</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1255616460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The tech companies seem to believe that CSIRO's patent is obvious and thus shouldn't have been granted. Is there any merit to this claim? Everyone seems to be either jumping to CSIRO (all the people with mod points seem to be on their side) or the tech companies defense without even thinking about the actual patent they are trying to enforce.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The tech companies seem to believe that CSIRO 's patent is obvious and thus should n't have been granted .
Is there any merit to this claim ?
Everyone seems to be either jumping to CSIRO ( all the people with mod points seem to be on their side ) or the tech companies defense without even thinking about the actual patent they are trying to enforce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tech companies seem to believe that CSIRO's patent is obvious and thus shouldn't have been granted.
Is there any merit to this claim?
Everyone seems to be either jumping to CSIRO (all the people with mod points seem to be on their side) or the tech companies defense without even thinking about the actual patent they are trying to enforce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29756565</id>
	<title>Re:Only fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255618380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CSIRO winning the patent doesn't really help Australians as one might think. The companies involved in this patent that do business in Australia, will simply raise the prices on their infringing technologies. Unlike some of you might assume that the tax payer is benefiting from the infringement, you're really not. If three companies raise the price by $2 USD ($1 for the losing this case and $1 for future licenses) and sells three of the devices to 5,000,000 Australians a year, then in five years Australians will have paid not only the lawsuit off, but for the technology they invented-- twice (once through taxes and another through licenses).</p><p>In the short run, CSIRO wins and tax dollars can be appropriated to something else for the government, but in the long run, the tax payers lose by funding the same invention 2x. If this were a private organization that created wifi chips, then the economy would have been stimulated by the win; however, since this CSIRO are a government own organization, not much will come out of this except a few more research positions and maybe another secretary.</p><p>I don't see CSIRO as a patent troll. They actually are trying to produce something (intellectual contribution counts as something). And I don't think the licenses that they negotiate will be excessive. If they were, then a work-around will just be created; and in 10 years, the technology they created would be worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CSIRO winning the patent does n't really help Australians as one might think .
The companies involved in this patent that do business in Australia , will simply raise the prices on their infringing technologies .
Unlike some of you might assume that the tax payer is benefiting from the infringement , you 're really not .
If three companies raise the price by $ 2 USD ( $ 1 for the losing this case and $ 1 for future licenses ) and sells three of the devices to 5,000,000 Australians a year , then in five years Australians will have paid not only the lawsuit off , but for the technology they invented-- twice ( once through taxes and another through licenses ) .In the short run , CSIRO wins and tax dollars can be appropriated to something else for the government , but in the long run , the tax payers lose by funding the same invention 2x .
If this were a private organization that created wifi chips , then the economy would have been stimulated by the win ; however , since this CSIRO are a government own organization , not much will come out of this except a few more research positions and maybe another secretary.I do n't see CSIRO as a patent troll .
They actually are trying to produce something ( intellectual contribution counts as something ) .
And I do n't think the licenses that they negotiate will be excessive .
If they were , then a work-around will just be created ; and in 10 years , the technology they created would be worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CSIRO winning the patent doesn't really help Australians as one might think.
The companies involved in this patent that do business in Australia, will simply raise the prices on their infringing technologies.
Unlike some of you might assume that the tax payer is benefiting from the infringement, you're really not.
If three companies raise the price by $2 USD ($1 for the losing this case and $1 for future licenses) and sells three of the devices to 5,000,000 Australians a year, then in five years Australians will have paid not only the lawsuit off, but for the technology they invented-- twice (once through taxes and another through licenses).In the short run, CSIRO wins and tax dollars can be appropriated to something else for the government, but in the long run, the tax payers lose by funding the same invention 2x.
If this were a private organization that created wifi chips, then the economy would have been stimulated by the win; however, since this CSIRO are a government own organization, not much will come out of this except a few more research positions and maybe another secretary.I don't see CSIRO as a patent troll.
They actually are trying to produce something (intellectual contribution counts as something).
And I don't think the licenses that they negotiate will be excessive.
If they were, then a work-around will just be created; and in 10 years, the technology they created would be worthless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29756443</id>
	<title>Re:OK, then, please pay the U.S. for ...</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1255617780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe you should <a href="http://www.nethistory.info/History\%20of\%20the\%20Internet/index.html" title="nethistory.info">read up</a> [nethistory.info] about that. There were somewhat equivalent systems running in other countries at the same time as ARPAs. A lot of the research was not done by americans, and the WWW concept was done by an Englishman. When did the net take off ? Before or after the web ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should read up [ nethistory.info ] about that .
There were somewhat equivalent systems running in other countries at the same time as ARPAs .
A lot of the research was not done by americans , and the WWW concept was done by an Englishman .
When did the net take off ?
Before or after the web ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should read up [nethistory.info] about that.
There were somewhat equivalent systems running in other countries at the same time as ARPAs.
A lot of the research was not done by americans, and the WWW concept was done by an Englishman.
When did the net take off ?
Before or after the web ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753867</id>
	<title>Alternatives to 802.11a,g,n</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1255547700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you bet there are a few alternatives coming down the pipe soon? IBM, Apple, Intel, everybody coming out with the 'better wireless networking' technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you bet there are a few alternatives coming down the pipe soon ?
IBM , Apple , Intel , everybody coming out with the 'better wireless networking ' technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you bet there are a few alternatives coming down the pipe soon?
IBM, Apple, Intel, everybody coming out with the 'better wireless networking' technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754021</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives to 802.11a,g,n</title>
	<author>biovoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255549920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Develop an alternative - easy.</p><p>Making it a standard when a standard already exists that is supported in thousands of devices and established infrastructure - hard.</p><p>Particularly if "IBM, Apple, Intel, everybody" all come out with different alternatives. Won't happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Develop an alternative - easy.Making it a standard when a standard already exists that is supported in thousands of devices and established infrastructure - hard.Particularly if " IBM , Apple , Intel , everybody " all come out with different alternatives .
Wo n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Develop an alternative - easy.Making it a standard when a standard already exists that is supported in thousands of devices and established infrastructure - hard.Particularly if "IBM, Apple, Intel, everybody" all come out with different alternatives.
Won't happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29762001</id>
	<title>Re:Desire to license</title>
	<author>HuguesT</author>
	<datestamp>1255599480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From memory CISCO got an early license because they bought the startup from CSIRO that set put to exploit that patent and related others. Please correct me if I'm wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From memory CISCO got an early license because they bought the startup from CSIRO that set put to exploit that patent and related others .
Please correct me if I 'm wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From memory CISCO got an early license because they bought the startup from CSIRO that set put to exploit that patent and related others.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753833</id>
	<title>Re:Patent trolls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255547340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real issue is that some idiot at IEEE wrote a wireless spec that violated this patent. Wonder if CSIRO was involved in that at all...</p><p>It's like the goddamn Rambus bullshit all over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real issue is that some idiot at IEEE wrote a wireless spec that violated this patent .
Wonder if CSIRO was involved in that at all...It 's like the goddamn Rambus bullshit all over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real issue is that some idiot at IEEE wrote a wireless spec that violated this patent.
Wonder if CSIRO was involved in that at all...It's like the goddamn Rambus bullshit all over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753621</id>
	<title>Desire to license</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255544640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So much text for an article that can be summarized as:</p><p>Patent Troll: "It is our desire to collect money from our patented technology that we license but don't actually make."</p><p>Noticeably absent from the list of defendents-to-be: Cisco. Not because they aren't infringing on any patents, but because the name is too close to CISRO that it would confuse a jury. Would be fun if they thought CISRO was a knockoff. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So much text for an article that can be summarized as : Patent Troll : " It is our desire to collect money from our patented technology that we license but do n't actually make .
" Noticeably absent from the list of defendents-to-be : Cisco .
Not because they are n't infringing on any patents , but because the name is too close to CISRO that it would confuse a jury .
Would be fun if they thought CISRO was a knockoff .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much text for an article that can be summarized as:Patent Troll: "It is our desire to collect money from our patented technology that we license but don't actually make.
"Noticeably absent from the list of defendents-to-be: Cisco.
Not because they aren't infringing on any patents, but because the name is too close to CISRO that it would confuse a jury.
Would be fun if they thought CISRO was a knockoff.
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29756859</id>
	<title>Re:OK, then, please pay the U.S. for ...</title>
	<author>Ecuador</author>
	<datestamp>1255619700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a good example, as the internet elders have declared the Internet free for everyone all over the world. Plus, even if it was invented in the US, it is now in the hands of the British (on top of the Big Ben for good reception as you probably know).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a good example , as the internet elders have declared the Internet free for everyone all over the world .
Plus , even if it was invented in the US , it is now in the hands of the British ( on top of the Big Ben for good reception as you probably know ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a good example, as the internet elders have declared the Internet free for everyone all over the world.
Plus, even if it was invented in the US, it is now in the hands of the British (on top of the Big Ben for good reception as you probably know).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753711</id>
	<title>Re:Desire to license</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255545780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Noticeably absent from the list of defendents-to-be: Cisco. Not because they aren't infringing on any patents,</p></div></blockquote><p>
Cisco aren't on the list because they already have a licence for the tech for which they pay royalties.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Noticeably absent from the list of defendents-to-be : Cisco .
Not because they are n't infringing on any patents , Cisco are n't on the list because they already have a licence for the tech for which they pay royalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noticeably absent from the list of defendents-to-be: Cisco.
Not because they aren't infringing on any patents,
Cisco aren't on the list because they already have a licence for the tech for which they pay royalties.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575</id>
	<title>Only fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255544220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pat on the back for CSIRO. One of the ways government-owned research organizations can expect to survive is by monetizing inventions - when companies like Lucent, Buffalo, Linksys, Apple etc. all make a killing off this stuff and didn't invest in its development it is only fair they are forced to pay up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pat on the back for CSIRO .
One of the ways government-owned research organizations can expect to survive is by monetizing inventions - when companies like Lucent , Buffalo , Linksys , Apple etc .
all make a killing off this stuff and did n't invest in its development it is only fair they are forced to pay up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pat on the back for CSIRO.
One of the ways government-owned research organizations can expect to survive is by monetizing inventions - when companies like Lucent, Buffalo, Linksys, Apple etc.
all make a killing off this stuff and didn't invest in its development it is only fair they are forced to pay up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29756443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29756859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29756565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29762001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29763715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29758681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_0222213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29762001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29756565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29756859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29756443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29759473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29753527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29763715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29755185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_0222213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29754413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_0222213.29758681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
