<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_14_1954259</id>
	<title>Psystar Crushed In Court</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258190700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>We've been following the case of Mac cloner Psystar for <a href="//apple.slashdot.org/story/08/04/28/158249/First-Psystar-Mac-Clones-Ship">some</a> <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/08/07/15/1739202/Apple-Files-Suit-Against-Psystar">time</a> <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/08/08/26/2148250/Psystar-Will-Countersue-Apple">now</a>. Apple was just handed a <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091114101637997">summary judgement over Psystar</a>, and as usual Groklaw has the scoop. Here is <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf">the order</a> (PDF), though PJ supplies it in text form at the link above. <i>"Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. ... It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal. Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied. So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse. ... So that means damages ahead for Psystar on the copyright issues just decided on summary judgment, at a minimum. The court asked for briefs on that subject. In short, Psystar is toast."</i> Reader UnknowingFool adds, "There are still issues to be decided but they are only Apple's allegations: breach of contract, induced breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution; trade dress infringement, state unfair competition, and common law unfair competition. Even if Psystar wins all of them, it is unlikely to help them very much."</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been following the case of Mac cloner Psystar for some time now .
Apple was just handed a summary judgement over Psystar , and as usual Groklaw has the scoop .
Here is the order ( PDF ) , though PJ supplies it in text form at the link above .
" Psystar just got what 's coming to them in the California case .
... It 's a total massacre .
Psystar 's first-sale defense went down in flames .
Apple 's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted .
Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal .
Psystar 's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied .
So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse .
... So that means damages ahead for Psystar on the copyright issues just decided on summary judgment , at a minimum .
The court asked for briefs on that subject .
In short , Psystar is toast .
" Reader UnknowingFool adds , " There are still issues to be decided but they are only Apple 's allegations : breach of contract , induced breach of contract , trademark infringement , trademark dilution ; trade dress infringement , state unfair competition , and common law unfair competition .
Even if Psystar wins all of them , it is unlikely to help them very much .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been following the case of Mac cloner Psystar for some time now.
Apple was just handed a summary judgement over Psystar, and as usual Groklaw has the scoop.
Here is the order (PDF), though PJ supplies it in text form at the link above.
"Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case.
... It's a total massacre.
Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames.
Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted.
Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal.
Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied.
So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse.
... So that means damages ahead for Psystar on the copyright issues just decided on summary judgment, at a minimum.
The court asked for briefs on that subject.
In short, Psystar is toast.
" Reader UnknowingFool adds, "There are still issues to be decided but they are only Apple's allegations: breach of contract, induced breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution; trade dress infringement, state unfair competition, and common law unfair competition.
Even if Psystar wins all of them, it is unlikely to help them very much.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102524</id>
	<title>Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258206780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work, thereby violating copyright laws.<br>...<br>I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue.</p></div><p>Kind of like selling a used book with notes in it, eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work , thereby violating copyright laws....I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue.Kind of like selling a used book with notes in it , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work, thereby violating copyright laws....I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue.Kind of like selling a used book with notes in it, eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102464</id>
	<title>How far would some get by selling per unlocked iph</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1258206180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How far would some get by selling per unlocked iphones?</p><p>as the law lets you unlock a phone to use it on any network.</p><p>Will apple have a very hard time shutting that down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How far would some get by selling per unlocked iphones ? as the law lets you unlock a phone to use it on any network.Will apple have a very hard time shutting that down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How far would some get by selling per unlocked iphones?as the law lets you unlock a phone to use it on any network.Will apple have a very hard time shutting that down?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102776</id>
	<title>Who wrote this garbage?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258209000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, such gushing . . . This, people, is where the word "fanboy" comes from.  Whoever wrote this is is like a 12 year old girl at a Jonas Brothers concert.</p><p>Should we really be this excited about a legal judgment that limits consumer rights just because that judgment happens to favor a company that makes cool stuff we use? I think most reasonable people will agree there was nothing morally wrong with what Pystar was doing -- if it was legally wrong, that's a flaw in the law.  This whole idea that Apple can sell something and then tell the people buying it how they may and may not use it is a bit silly.  If Pystar was to modify and then resell it for the same price, what's wrong with that? As long as the person buys it understands that its modified from its original form and DESIRES Those modifications, nobody is harmed and consumers benefit from increased choice.  Apple benefits.  Pystar benefits.  Consumers benefit.  Everybody benefits.</p><p>Of course, Apple doesn't like it because the benefit they reap by selling the software is less than the benefit they could reap by forcing you to buy their overpriced hardware as well.  It's greed, plain and simple.  Legal, perhaps -- but not something to cheer about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , such gushing .
. .
This , people , is where the word " fanboy " comes from .
Whoever wrote this is is like a 12 year old girl at a Jonas Brothers concert.Should we really be this excited about a legal judgment that limits consumer rights just because that judgment happens to favor a company that makes cool stuff we use ?
I think most reasonable people will agree there was nothing morally wrong with what Pystar was doing -- if it was legally wrong , that 's a flaw in the law .
This whole idea that Apple can sell something and then tell the people buying it how they may and may not use it is a bit silly .
If Pystar was to modify and then resell it for the same price , what 's wrong with that ?
As long as the person buys it understands that its modified from its original form and DESIRES Those modifications , nobody is harmed and consumers benefit from increased choice .
Apple benefits .
Pystar benefits .
Consumers benefit .
Everybody benefits.Of course , Apple does n't like it because the benefit they reap by selling the software is less than the benefit they could reap by forcing you to buy their overpriced hardware as well .
It 's greed , plain and simple .
Legal , perhaps -- but not something to cheer about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, such gushing .
. .
This, people, is where the word "fanboy" comes from.
Whoever wrote this is is like a 12 year old girl at a Jonas Brothers concert.Should we really be this excited about a legal judgment that limits consumer rights just because that judgment happens to favor a company that makes cool stuff we use?
I think most reasonable people will agree there was nothing morally wrong with what Pystar was doing -- if it was legally wrong, that's a flaw in the law.
This whole idea that Apple can sell something and then tell the people buying it how they may and may not use it is a bit silly.
If Pystar was to modify and then resell it for the same price, what's wrong with that?
As long as the person buys it understands that its modified from its original form and DESIRES Those modifications, nobody is harmed and consumers benefit from increased choice.
Apple benefits.
Pystar benefits.
Consumers benefit.
Everybody benefits.Of course, Apple doesn't like it because the benefit they reap by selling the software is less than the benefit they could reap by forcing you to buy their overpriced hardware as well.
It's greed, plain and simple.
Legal, perhaps -- but not something to cheer about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101036</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>cbreak</author>
	<datestamp>1258195320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to have worked quite well so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to have worked quite well so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to have worked quite well so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30113558</id>
	<title>PArtisan much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258371420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Partisan, are we?</p><p>It's a little hard to tell mind with words like "Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case."</p><p>With wording like that, it's hard to figure out where you stand...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Partisan , are we ? It 's a little hard to tell mind with words like " Psystar just got what 's coming to them in the California case .
" With wording like that , it 's hard to figure out where you stand.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Partisan, are we?It's a little hard to tell mind with words like "Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case.
"With wording like that, it's hard to figure out where you stand...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104954</id>
	<title>Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258291980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the judgement notes:</p><p>But Apple's licensing agreement is not nearly as all-encompassing as those addressed in Lasercomb America &mdash; Apple's agreement does not seek to control all competition in an area outside the copyright. Rather, Apple's agreement simply attempts to control the use of Apple's own software &mdash; an area that is the focus of the copyright.</p><p>Therefore, Psystar's motion for summary judgment on copyright misuse must be denied.</p><p>----</p><p>It was not a technical decision only. The EULA is valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the judgement notes : But Apple 's licensing agreement is not nearly as all-encompassing as those addressed in Lasercomb America    Apple 's agreement does not seek to control all competition in an area outside the copyright .
Rather , Apple 's agreement simply attempts to control the use of Apple 's own software    an area that is the focus of the copyright.Therefore , Psystar 's motion for summary judgment on copyright misuse must be denied.----It was not a technical decision only .
The EULA is valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the judgement notes:But Apple's licensing agreement is not nearly as all-encompassing as those addressed in Lasercomb America — Apple's agreement does not seek to control all competition in an area outside the copyright.
Rather, Apple's agreement simply attempts to control the use of Apple's own software — an area that is the focus of the copyright.Therefore, Psystar's motion for summary judgment on copyright misuse must be denied.----It was not a technical decision only.
The EULA is valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100952</id>
	<title>Re:This comment surprises me</title>
	<author>binarylarry</author>
	<datestamp>1258194720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about Microsoft? Although they're usually picked on because of their past actions, it's possible here.</p><p>Apple is stealing a lot of Microsoft's mindshare and they're percieved as "cool and hip" whereas as Microsoft are thought of as an evil MegaCorp.</p><p>Dragging Apple down to their level in the public's eyes wouldn't be a bad strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Microsoft ?
Although they 're usually picked on because of their past actions , it 's possible here.Apple is stealing a lot of Microsoft 's mindshare and they 're percieved as " cool and hip " whereas as Microsoft are thought of as an evil MegaCorp.Dragging Apple down to their level in the public 's eyes would n't be a bad strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Microsoft?
Although they're usually picked on because of their past actions, it's possible here.Apple is stealing a lot of Microsoft's mindshare and they're percieved as "cool and hip" whereas as Microsoft are thought of as an evil MegaCorp.Dragging Apple down to their level in the public's eyes wouldn't be a bad strategy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102406</id>
	<title>Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1258205700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are limitations on the Section 106 exclusive rights in subsequent sections, notably Section 117:</p><blockquote><div><p>117. Limitation on exclusive rights: computer programs<br>(a)</p><p>Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:</p><p>(1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner</p></div></blockquote><p>This exception was not properly raised, and the court didn't bother to consider it, contributing to the widespread ignorance of this issue, unfortunately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are limitations on the Section 106 exclusive rights in subsequent sections , notably Section 117 : 117 .
Limitation on exclusive rights : computer programs ( a ) Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy .
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [ 17 USC 106 ] , it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided : ( 1 ) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other mannerThis exception was not properly raised , and the court did n't bother to consider it , contributing to the widespread ignorance of this issue , unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are limitations on the Section 106 exclusive rights in subsequent sections, notably Section 117:117.
Limitation on exclusive rights: computer programs(a)Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:(1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other mannerThis exception was not properly raised, and the court didn't bother to consider it, contributing to the widespread ignorance of this issue, unfortunately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101220</id>
	<title>Write off Apple</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1258196640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya the business model Apple uses will never work. Ya..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya the business model Apple uses will never work .
Ya. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya the business model Apple uses will never work.
Ya..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101166</id>
	<title>Psystar dies, others persist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258196280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the German guys from PearC.de and their distributors:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.be,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.fr,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.es,<br>they just announced a whole new line including Core i5 machines<br>and dual Xeon configurations, all running 10.6.2.</p><p>I really don't think Apple will be able to sink all the<br>clone builders of this world,even less stop the hackingtoshers of this world<br>but maybe they owe it to their shareholders to win a local US battle and show some muscle.<br>I'm convinced Apple secretly find this a good evolution<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>osx86-rider</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the German guys from PearC.de and their distributors : .be , .fr , .es,they just announced a whole new line including Core i5 machinesand dual Xeon configurations , all running 10.6.2.I really do n't think Apple will be able to sink all theclone builders of this world,even less stop the hackingtoshers of this worldbut maybe they owe it to their shareholders to win a local US battle and show some muscle.I 'm convinced Apple secretly find this a good evolution : - ) osx86-rider</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the German guys from PearC.de and their distributors: .be, .fr, .es,they just announced a whole new line including Core i5 machinesand dual Xeon configurations, all running 10.6.2.I really don't think Apple will be able to sink all theclone builders of this world,even less stop the hackingtoshers of this worldbut maybe they owe it to their shareholders to win a local US battle and show some muscle.I'm convinced Apple secretly find this a good evolution :-)osx86-rider</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103914</id>
	<title>ha ha /nelson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258221600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did psystar REALLY think pulling this shit was a sustainable business model?
<p>
whether you like apple or not - what psystar was doing was effectively taking all of apple's R&amp;D, and selling it for peanuts having done very little actual work of their own.
</p><p>
OS X is not "on sale" for $29 for anyone to use on any hardware.  The software license explicitly states:
</p><blockquote><div><p>A.  Single use.  This license allows you to instal, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labelled computer at a time.  You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Its pretty fucking clear about what you can and can't do with it.  If you do not agree with the license, you are entitled to a full refund upon return of the software, from your place of purchase.
</p><p>
My bet is that Psystar were hoping that this license would make their CUSTOMERS accountable, as THEY would be the ones clicking through the license agreement and ignoring it.  Good on the court for holding <b>Psystar</b> accountable, and not forcing apple to start going after hobbyist users who are running OS X on their PCs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did psystar REALLY think pulling this shit was a sustainable business model ?
whether you like apple or not - what psystar was doing was effectively taking all of apple 's R&amp;D , and selling it for peanuts having done very little actual work of their own .
OS X is not " on sale " for $ 29 for anyone to use on any hardware .
The software license explicitly states : A. Single use .
This license allows you to instal , use and run one ( 1 ) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labelled computer at a time .
You agree not to install , use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer , or to enable others to do so .
Its pretty fucking clear about what you can and ca n't do with it .
If you do not agree with the license , you are entitled to a full refund upon return of the software , from your place of purchase .
My bet is that Psystar were hoping that this license would make their CUSTOMERS accountable , as THEY would be the ones clicking through the license agreement and ignoring it .
Good on the court for holding Psystar accountable , and not forcing apple to start going after hobbyist users who are running OS X on their PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did psystar REALLY think pulling this shit was a sustainable business model?
whether you like apple or not - what psystar was doing was effectively taking all of apple's R&amp;D, and selling it for peanuts having done very little actual work of their own.
OS X is not "on sale" for $29 for anyone to use on any hardware.
The software license explicitly states:
A.  Single use.
This license allows you to instal, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labelled computer at a time.
You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.
Its pretty fucking clear about what you can and can't do with it.
If you do not agree with the license, you are entitled to a full refund upon return of the software, from your place of purchase.
My bet is that Psystar were hoping that this license would make their CUSTOMERS accountable, as THEY would be the ones clicking through the license agreement and ignoring it.
Good on the court for holding Psystar accountable, and not forcing apple to start going after hobbyist users who are running OS X on their PCs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30109096</id>
	<title>Charlie Perperidis...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258281240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very good on this. Charlie Perperidis</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very good on this .
Charlie Perperidis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very good on this.
Charlie Perperidis</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102522</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1258206720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The crushing was inevitable.  Any theories on why the principals of Psystar tried this bs in the first place?<br>Are they stupid, or are they going to come out of this financial winners (because the money is unreachable by now)?</p><p>Any ideas from anybody?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The crushing was inevitable .
Any theories on why the principals of Psystar tried this bs in the first place ? Are they stupid , or are they going to come out of this financial winners ( because the money is unreachable by now ) ? Any ideas from anybody ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The crushing was inevitable.
Any theories on why the principals of Psystar tried this bs in the first place?Are they stupid, or are they going to come out of this financial winners (because the money is unreachable by now)?Any ideas from anybody?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103432</id>
	<title>Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1258217340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Once you've had Mac, you can't go back!</i></p><p>I'm living proof that this is incorrect. I was exclusively a Mac user from 1990 through 1996. In 1997 I built a Windows PC to play some games. Later that same year, I built my first Linux file server/firewall. For three and a half years, I was primarily a Mac user. By 2000 I was primarily a PC user. I haven't so much as powered up any of my Macs in over a year.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you 've had Mac , you ca n't go back ! I 'm living proof that this is incorrect .
I was exclusively a Mac user from 1990 through 1996 .
In 1997 I built a Windows PC to play some games .
Later that same year , I built my first Linux file server/firewall .
For three and a half years , I was primarily a Mac user .
By 2000 I was primarily a PC user .
I have n't so much as powered up any of my Macs in over a year.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you've had Mac, you can't go back!I'm living proof that this is incorrect.
I was exclusively a Mac user from 1990 through 1996.
In 1997 I built a Windows PC to play some games.
Later that same year, I built my first Linux file server/firewall.
For three and a half years, I was primarily a Mac user.
By 2000 I was primarily a PC user.
I haven't so much as powered up any of my Macs in over a year.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30109784</id>
	<title>Re:Encryption Keys?? (is Apple blowing smoke?)</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1258286220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102526</id>
	<title>Article in FL local newspaper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258206780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-11-12/news/psystar-a-rebel-south-florida-company-takes-on-apple/" title="browardpalmbeach.com" rel="nofollow">Article in local FL paper</a> [browardpalmbeach.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Article in local FL paper [ browardpalmbeach.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Article in local FL paper [browardpalmbeach.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104044</id>
	<title>Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1258223340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I think PJ has lost it and from reading the rest of the articles on the site, seems to have become a rabid anti-MS Apple fangirl</p></div></blockquote><p>She's IBM's lapdog.  Her beliefs are whatever IBM says they should be.  So this is just another instance of IBM being pro-lockdown.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think PJ has lost it and from reading the rest of the articles on the site , seems to have become a rabid anti-MS Apple fangirlShe 's IBM 's lapdog .
Her beliefs are whatever IBM says they should be .
So this is just another instance of IBM being pro-lockdown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think PJ has lost it and from reading the rest of the articles on the site, seems to have become a rabid anti-MS Apple fangirlShe's IBM's lapdog.
Her beliefs are whatever IBM says they should be.
So this is just another instance of IBM being pro-lockdown.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30111118</id>
	<title>Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1258297980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well put, sir.</p><p>It's this deluge of traffic of unlicensed copyright material by freetards that's giving media companies the ammunition they need to get these crazy laws passed.  And people buying their products that give them the money to buy them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well put , sir.It 's this deluge of traffic of unlicensed copyright material by freetards that 's giving media companies the ammunition they need to get these crazy laws passed .
And people buying their products that give them the money to buy them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well put, sir.It's this deluge of traffic of unlicensed copyright material by freetards that's giving media companies the ammunition they need to get these crazy laws passed.
And people buying their products that give them the money to buy them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103126</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258213680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely you jest. Those clones did nothing but cannibalize Apple's unit sales and lower the Mac's reputation for quality. Jobs did the right thing by ditching them. They were a negative not a positive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you jest .
Those clones did nothing but cannibalize Apple 's unit sales and lower the Mac 's reputation for quality .
Jobs did the right thing by ditching them .
They were a negative not a positive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you jest.
Those clones did nothing but cannibalize Apple's unit sales and lower the Mac's reputation for quality.
Jobs did the right thing by ditching them.
They were a negative not a positive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104086</id>
	<title>Re:How far would some get by selling per unlocked</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1258224000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one except Apple can legally be in the business of selling unlocked iPhones.    But someone could presumably legally be in the business of unlocking iPhones owned by someone else, if authorized by the owner of the phone, of course - See 17 USC 117(a).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one except Apple can legally be in the business of selling unlocked iPhones .
But someone could presumably legally be in the business of unlocking iPhones owned by someone else , if authorized by the owner of the phone , of course - See 17 USC 117 ( a ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one except Apple can legally be in the business of selling unlocked iPhones.
But someone could presumably legally be in the business of unlocking iPhones owned by someone else, if authorized by the owner of the phone, of course - See 17 USC 117(a).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101438</id>
	<title>Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258198320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. WTF is up with this quote from TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And to those who argue that all that matters is that open source is a better way to develop code, let this case be a warning message. Apple makes fabulous code. Of course, the BSD community did a lot of it for them, but Apple makes it all just work for end users, and they do that beautifully. So no one can argue that for end users it is not fabulous code. It is.</p></div><p>Huh? How is this case a warning message to the people who argue that FOSS is a better way to develop code? I think PJ has lost it and from reading the rest of the articles on the site, seems to have become a rabid anti-MS Apple fangirl.</p><p>And she comes across as pretty weak in the law department as well. Look at how she skirts an important question</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I know. They'll say, but, but, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out.</p></div><p>Erm what? Can't she shed some light on a very relevant and interesting theoretical instead of evading it just because it can be against her conclusion that Psystar got crushed? I don't see any insight in her article, just meaningless gloating that Apple won.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
WTF is up with this quote from TFA : And to those who argue that all that matters is that open source is a better way to develop code , let this case be a warning message .
Apple makes fabulous code .
Of course , the BSD community did a lot of it for them , but Apple makes it all just work for end users , and they do that beautifully .
So no one can argue that for end users it is not fabulous code .
It is.Huh ?
How is this case a warning message to the people who argue that FOSS is a better way to develop code ?
I think PJ has lost it and from reading the rest of the articles on the site , seems to have become a rabid anti-MS Apple fangirl.And she comes across as pretty weak in the law department as well .
Look at how she skirts an important questionI know .
They 'll say , but , but , but ... what if they had n't used the master and just used each copy , then would it work ?
Sons , why do you think Psystar used the master copy ?
Because it 's a business , and in a business , efficiency is money .
That 's why businesses set themselves up , to make money .
The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL .
Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money .
Theoreticals belong on message boards , not in business and definitely not in courtrooms , and even on message boards , everyone told you for years that this would n't work out if someone tried it .
It 's been tried .
It did n't work out.Erm what ?
Ca n't she shed some light on a very relevant and interesting theoretical instead of evading it just because it can be against her conclusion that Psystar got crushed ?
I do n't see any insight in her article , just meaningless gloating that Apple won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
WTF is up with this quote from TFA:And to those who argue that all that matters is that open source is a better way to develop code, let this case be a warning message.
Apple makes fabulous code.
Of course, the BSD community did a lot of it for them, but Apple makes it all just work for end users, and they do that beautifully.
So no one can argue that for end users it is not fabulous code.
It is.Huh?
How is this case a warning message to the people who argue that FOSS is a better way to develop code?
I think PJ has lost it and from reading the rest of the articles on the site, seems to have become a rabid anti-MS Apple fangirl.And she comes across as pretty weak in the law department as well.
Look at how she skirts an important questionI know.
They'll say, but, but, but ... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work?
Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy?
Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money.
That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money.
The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL.
Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money.
Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it.
It's been tried.
It didn't work out.Erm what?
Can't she shed some light on a very relevant and interesting theoretical instead of evading it just because it can be against her conclusion that Psystar got crushed?
I don't see any insight in her article, just meaningless gloating that Apple won.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102988</id>
	<title>Well, duh!</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1258211880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First sale doctrine covers buying a copy, and then subsequently selling <b>that copy</b>. E.g., I buy a book. I read it. I sell it to a used bookstore. Covered by first sale. If I bought a book, read it, and then made 100 photocopies, and tried to sell THOSE to the used bookstore, of course first sale doctrine would not apply.</p><p>No surprise that Psystar lost trying to use first sale to justify what they did.</p><p>Lesson to any future company that tries to sell Hackintosh computers. Buy a boxed copy of OS X for each computer you ship. Do not even open the box--just ship it with your computer, which should come with some flavor of Linux installed. You'll be fine on first sale then. (You'll still find yourself on the wrong end of an Apple lawsuit over contract issues, but at least you'll be OK on copyright).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First sale doctrine covers buying a copy , and then subsequently selling that copy .
E.g. , I buy a book .
I read it .
I sell it to a used bookstore .
Covered by first sale .
If I bought a book , read it , and then made 100 photocopies , and tried to sell THOSE to the used bookstore , of course first sale doctrine would not apply.No surprise that Psystar lost trying to use first sale to justify what they did.Lesson to any future company that tries to sell Hackintosh computers .
Buy a boxed copy of OS X for each computer you ship .
Do not even open the box--just ship it with your computer , which should come with some flavor of Linux installed .
You 'll be fine on first sale then .
( You 'll still find yourself on the wrong end of an Apple lawsuit over contract issues , but at least you 'll be OK on copyright ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First sale doctrine covers buying a copy, and then subsequently selling that copy.
E.g., I buy a book.
I read it.
I sell it to a used bookstore.
Covered by first sale.
If I bought a book, read it, and then made 100 photocopies, and tried to sell THOSE to the used bookstore, of course first sale doctrine would not apply.No surprise that Psystar lost trying to use first sale to justify what they did.Lesson to any future company that tries to sell Hackintosh computers.
Buy a boxed copy of OS X for each computer you ship.
Do not even open the box--just ship it with your computer, which should come with some flavor of Linux installed.
You'll be fine on first sale then.
(You'll still find yourself on the wrong end of an Apple lawsuit over contract issues, but at least you'll be OK on copyright).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102384</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>pbjones</author>
	<datestamp>1258205520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NNOOOOOO!! They were loosing hardware sales when they licensed MacOS 7, Only one company, Power Computing, was producing low end Macs, the rest were producing premium end machines that competed with Apple, so Apple pulled the plug, renamed v7.7 to v8.0 and helped Power Computing leave the market, and kept PC drivers on Apple's ftp site. Apples reputation, deserved or not, relies on control of hardware and software, split it up and every dog-eared corner shop will produce 'Mac clones' with crap drivers and bad design and then the Apple gloss will disappear. I could never see why there is so much fuss about WANTING MacOSX for X86 when Windows is supposed to be so good, and Linux will crush Apple any-day-now.</p><p>As for Phystar, you play with the big boys, you get burned. (applies to MS, McBurgers, Crafty foods, any of them)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NNOOOOOO ! !
They were loosing hardware sales when they licensed MacOS 7 , Only one company , Power Computing , was producing low end Macs , the rest were producing premium end machines that competed with Apple , so Apple pulled the plug , renamed v7.7 to v8.0 and helped Power Computing leave the market , and kept PC drivers on Apple 's ftp site .
Apples reputation , deserved or not , relies on control of hardware and software , split it up and every dog-eared corner shop will produce 'Mac clones ' with crap drivers and bad design and then the Apple gloss will disappear .
I could never see why there is so much fuss about WANTING MacOSX for X86 when Windows is supposed to be so good , and Linux will crush Apple any-day-now.As for Phystar , you play with the big boys , you get burned .
( applies to MS , McBurgers , Crafty foods , any of them )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NNOOOOOO!!
They were loosing hardware sales when they licensed MacOS 7, Only one company, Power Computing, was producing low end Macs, the rest were producing premium end machines that competed with Apple, so Apple pulled the plug, renamed v7.7 to v8.0 and helped Power Computing leave the market, and kept PC drivers on Apple's ftp site.
Apples reputation, deserved or not, relies on control of hardware and software, split it up and every dog-eared corner shop will produce 'Mac clones' with crap drivers and bad design and then the Apple gloss will disappear.
I could never see why there is so much fuss about WANTING MacOSX for X86 when Windows is supposed to be so good, and Linux will crush Apple any-day-now.As for Phystar, you play with the big boys, you get burned.
(applies to MS, McBurgers, Crafty foods, any of them)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101266</id>
	<title>If this was MSFT, the backlash would be huge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258197000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Double standard. Apple gets kid glove treatment in the media. I've been a mac user since OS 10.0...I bought my last mac, I hate their behavior. Win 7 changes everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Double standard .
Apple gets kid glove treatment in the media .
I 've been a mac user since OS 10.0...I bought my last mac , I hate their behavior .
Win 7 changes everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Double standard.
Apple gets kid glove treatment in the media.
I've been a mac user since OS 10.0...I bought my last mac, I hate their behavior.
Win 7 changes everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100914</id>
	<title>This comment surprises me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258194360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I know. They'll say, but, but, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out.</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... coming from Pamela, who revealed that Microsoft played no small role funding the SCO debacle though bogus license purchase.</p><p>If you follow patent troll cases for example, you would know that shell business are often set up by litigants for the sole purpose of facilitating a lawsuit.  Once you've acquired your defunct IP, you set up a web site to demonstrate intent to sell a product. Sure it's not strictly necessary to test the patent but it can help when it come times to assess damages, and it garners judge and jury sympathies (especially if you can get it tried in the Texas east district).</p><p>So, who was behind Psystar?  Dell perhaps?  There's no chance in hell a startup box builder would go to these lengths to test a legal theory. Their vested interest in the supposed business was a pittance compared to the cost to fight this, so where'd they get the money?</p><p>Obviously, Psystar was staged <i> <b>for the exclusive purpose of being sued</b></i> .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know .
They 'll say , but , but , but ... what if they had n't used the master and just used each copy , then would it work ?
Sons , why do you think Psystar used the master copy ?
Because it 's a business , and in a business , efficiency is money .
That 's why businesses set themselves up , to make money .
The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL .
Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money .
Theoreticals belong on message boards , not in business and definitely not in courtrooms , and even on message boards , everyone told you for years that this would n't work out if someone tried it .
It 's been tried .
It did n't work out .
... coming from Pamela , who revealed that Microsoft played no small role funding the SCO debacle though bogus license purchase.If you follow patent troll cases for example , you would know that shell business are often set up by litigants for the sole purpose of facilitating a lawsuit .
Once you 've acquired your defunct IP , you set up a web site to demonstrate intent to sell a product .
Sure it 's not strictly necessary to test the patent but it can help when it come times to assess damages , and it garners judge and jury sympathies ( especially if you can get it tried in the Texas east district ) .So , who was behind Psystar ?
Dell perhaps ?
There 's no chance in hell a startup box builder would go to these lengths to test a legal theory .
Their vested interest in the supposed business was a pittance compared to the cost to fight this , so where 'd they get the money ? Obviously , Psystar was staged for the exclusive purpose of being sued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know.
They'll say, but, but, but ... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work?
Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy?
Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money.
That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money.
The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL.
Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money.
Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it.
It's been tried.
It didn't work out.
... coming from Pamela, who revealed that Microsoft played no small role funding the SCO debacle though bogus license purchase.If you follow patent troll cases for example, you would know that shell business are often set up by litigants for the sole purpose of facilitating a lawsuit.
Once you've acquired your defunct IP, you set up a web site to demonstrate intent to sell a product.
Sure it's not strictly necessary to test the patent but it can help when it come times to assess damages, and it garners judge and jury sympathies (especially if you can get it tried in the Texas east district).So, who was behind Psystar?
Dell perhaps?
There's no chance in hell a startup box builder would go to these lengths to test a legal theory.
Their vested interest in the supposed business was a pittance compared to the cost to fight this, so where'd they get the money?Obviously, Psystar was staged  for the exclusive purpose of being sued .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101214</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1258196640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Might as well write off Apple as a player now</i></p><p>Had a look at their five-year chart?  Or better yet, their stock performance since 1997?</p><p>If you want to write them off, I sure hope you're not managing your own stock portfolio.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might as well write off Apple as a player nowHad a look at their five-year chart ?
Or better yet , their stock performance since 1997 ? If you want to write them off , I sure hope you 're not managing your own stock portfolio.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might as well write off Apple as a player nowHad a look at their five-year chart?
Or better yet, their stock performance since 1997?If you want to write them off, I sure hope you're not managing your own stock portfolio.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208</id>
	<title>Not first-sale doctrine:  Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258196580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this goes to show is that, contrary to the statements of some Slashdotters, Psystar did not re-install OS X as-is.   They replaced key segments, including the bootloader and kernel extensions, in order to get it to install on commodity hardware.   That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work, thereby violating copyright laws.   This is not about the EULA:</p><p><i>"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads. "Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."</i></p><p>I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this goes to show is that , contrary to the statements of some Slashdotters , Psystar did not re-install OS X as-is .
They replaced key segments , including the bootloader and kernel extensions , in order to get it to install on commodity hardware .
That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work , thereby violating copyright laws .
This is not about the EULA : " Psystar infringed Apple 's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X , " the ruling reads .
" Specifically , it made three modifications : ( 1 ) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar 's computers ; ( 2 ) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files ; and ( 3 ) adding non-Apple kernel extensions .
" I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this goes to show is that, contrary to the statements of some Slashdotters, Psystar did not re-install OS X as-is.
They replaced key segments, including the bootloader and kernel extensions, in order to get it to install on commodity hardware.
That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work, thereby violating copyright laws.
This is not about the EULA:"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads.
"Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions.
"I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104722</id>
	<title>The public policy issue is control</title>
	<author>Budenny</author>
	<datestamp>1258276320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The public policy issue here is control.  Back off the details of the case, generalize it, and you see there are two possibilities about the relationship between software and the brand of hardware it runs on.</p><p>CASE 1 is that the maker of the software has the legal right to specify what brand of hardware the stuff can be used on.</p><p>CASE 2 is that he cannot specify the brand of hardware the stuff can be used on.</p><p>The public policy issue is not about EULAs in general, or even copyright, or Apple, or about any technicalities of the software itself.  It is about what rights you want to have software makers to have in respect of the brand of hardware.</p><p>Let us give two very specific examples.  If the GPL were to be revised to say that it was permitted to install GPL software on any machine as long as it was not Apple labeled, would you approve of this?  If MS were to forbid the installation of Windows in dual boot mode on Apple labeled equipment, but permit dual booting on all other brands, would you approve of them having such a power?</p><p>Would you, for instance, approve of proceedings by MS subsequent to making such a modification to the Windows license, if it took Apple to court over bootcamp, for contributory copyright infringement?</p><p>Welcome to the world of control.  This is what the key issue is.  To me, intellectual freedom requires us a society to opt for CASE 2.   As for PJ, she may be right or wrong about the future of Psystar, but when it comes to public policy on this issue, she is in denial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The public policy issue here is control .
Back off the details of the case , generalize it , and you see there are two possibilities about the relationship between software and the brand of hardware it runs on.CASE 1 is that the maker of the software has the legal right to specify what brand of hardware the stuff can be used on.CASE 2 is that he can not specify the brand of hardware the stuff can be used on.The public policy issue is not about EULAs in general , or even copyright , or Apple , or about any technicalities of the software itself .
It is about what rights you want to have software makers to have in respect of the brand of hardware.Let us give two very specific examples .
If the GPL were to be revised to say that it was permitted to install GPL software on any machine as long as it was not Apple labeled , would you approve of this ?
If MS were to forbid the installation of Windows in dual boot mode on Apple labeled equipment , but permit dual booting on all other brands , would you approve of them having such a power ? Would you , for instance , approve of proceedings by MS subsequent to making such a modification to the Windows license , if it took Apple to court over bootcamp , for contributory copyright infringement ? Welcome to the world of control .
This is what the key issue is .
To me , intellectual freedom requires us a society to opt for CASE 2 .
As for PJ , she may be right or wrong about the future of Psystar , but when it comes to public policy on this issue , she is in denial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The public policy issue here is control.
Back off the details of the case, generalize it, and you see there are two possibilities about the relationship between software and the brand of hardware it runs on.CASE 1 is that the maker of the software has the legal right to specify what brand of hardware the stuff can be used on.CASE 2 is that he cannot specify the brand of hardware the stuff can be used on.The public policy issue is not about EULAs in general, or even copyright, or Apple, or about any technicalities of the software itself.
It is about what rights you want to have software makers to have in respect of the brand of hardware.Let us give two very specific examples.
If the GPL were to be revised to say that it was permitted to install GPL software on any machine as long as it was not Apple labeled, would you approve of this?
If MS were to forbid the installation of Windows in dual boot mode on Apple labeled equipment, but permit dual booting on all other brands, would you approve of them having such a power?Would you, for instance, approve of proceedings by MS subsequent to making such a modification to the Windows license, if it took Apple to court over bootcamp, for contributory copyright infringement?Welcome to the world of control.
This is what the key issue is.
To me, intellectual freedom requires us a society to opt for CASE 2.
As for PJ, she may be right or wrong about the future of Psystar, but when it comes to public policy on this issue, she is in denial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101834</id>
	<title>Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>DirePickle</author>
	<datestamp>1258201260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So anyone that has ever written in the margins of a textbook and then resold it is not within light years of the law!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>So anyone that has ever written in the margins of a textbook and then resold it is not within light years of the law !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So anyone that has ever written in the margins of a textbook and then resold it is not within light years of the law!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101080</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258195620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some might say that OS X is a good operating system BECAUSE it's only designed to work with Apple sanctioned hardware.  It's a tradeoff between having to support a massive amount of hardware poorly, or a small amount of hardware that limits customizability.

There are a lot of people out there that want to get things done with a computer, but not have to worry about the computer itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some might say that OS X is a good operating system BECAUSE it 's only designed to work with Apple sanctioned hardware .
It 's a tradeoff between having to support a massive amount of hardware poorly , or a small amount of hardware that limits customizability .
There are a lot of people out there that want to get things done with a computer , but not have to worry about the computer itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some might say that OS X is a good operating system BECAUSE it's only designed to work with Apple sanctioned hardware.
It's a tradeoff between having to support a massive amount of hardware poorly, or a small amount of hardware that limits customizability.
There are a lot of people out there that want to get things done with a computer, but not have to worry about the computer itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101974</id>
	<title>Coke? Is Pepsi ok?</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1258202220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NO. No it is NOT ok.  I want my coca-cola, because it's the brand that I like, and I've invented personal private reasons for why I prefer one to the other, but truth be told, if I were given a completely double-blind taste test, I likely couldn't tell the difference.</p><p>But all those "facts" get in the way of the truthiness.  I drink COKE, and Pepsi is NOT ok.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NO .
No it is NOT ok. I want my coca-cola , because it 's the brand that I like , and I 've invented personal private reasons for why I prefer one to the other , but truth be told , if I were given a completely double-blind taste test , I likely could n't tell the difference.But all those " facts " get in the way of the truthiness .
I drink COKE , and Pepsi is NOT ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO.
No it is NOT ok.  I want my coca-cola, because it's the brand that I like, and I've invented personal private reasons for why I prefer one to the other, but truth be told, if I were given a completely double-blind taste test, I likely couldn't tell the difference.But all those "facts" get in the way of the truthiness.
I drink COKE, and Pepsi is NOT ok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101586</id>
	<title>Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258199220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree; PJ is annoying.  Someone needs show her this and make her shit bricks: <a href="https://phonemasters.de/en/PearC-Starter" title="phonemasters.de">https://phonemasters.de/en/PearC-Starter</a> [phonemasters.de]</p><p>PearC is doing EXACTLY what Psystar is doing, but in Germany, so Apple can't do anything to stop them!  Kind of awesome<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p><p>---linuxrocks123</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree ; PJ is annoying .
Someone needs show her this and make her shit bricks : https : //phonemasters.de/en/PearC-Starter [ phonemasters.de ] PearC is doing EXACTLY what Psystar is doing , but in Germany , so Apple ca n't do anything to stop them !
Kind of awesome : D---linuxrocks123</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree; PJ is annoying.
Someone needs show her this and make her shit bricks: https://phonemasters.de/en/PearC-Starter [phonemasters.de]PearC is doing EXACTLY what Psystar is doing, but in Germany, so Apple can't do anything to stop them!
Kind of awesome :D---linuxrocks123</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101422</id>
	<title>Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>db32</author>
	<datestamp>1258198200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here...let me explain...  First...get all teary...then start whining...then demand that everyone should give you what you want the way you want it because you want it to be that way.  Then start stomping...screaming...crying...maybe rolling around on the floor.  Basically...all you really need to do is throw a temper tantrum that would make a 2yr old proud and you will understand the entitlement mentality behind all of this.  "I should get what I want, for the price I want, with the rules I want, because I want it that way."  This is all driven by people who think that if they don't like the terms of an agreement that they can unilaterally alter them to meet their needs.  These are the same people that dream up stupid shit ideas like "We reserve the right to alter this agreement at any time without notice" and then scream bloody murder when other like minded idiots lock them into a contract that says the same thing.<br> <br>
I don't like what the RIAA is doing.  I haven't bought any RIAA music in almost 10 years now.  I also haven't downloaded any music.  I don't try to rationalize some weird shit reason that says it is ok for me to simply take what I want because they won't offer it to me on the terms I want.  The same goes for software.  I VERY rarely buy software, and I pretty much restrict most of my software to F/OSS stuff.  There are a few software package that I have bought, but rather than downloading, I wait for a deal where I can pay the price I want, or I find another product.  It is that simple.  This insane entitlement mentality is getting disgusting, and is ultimately what drives much of behavior the whiners usually throw tantrums about.  Tell me that the RIAA behavior is anything other than greedy entitlement bullshit...just the same as the idiots downloading music.<br> <br>
These battles are escalating battles between large groups of spoiled brats that think that they deserve whatever they demand on the terms they demand and they will go to great lengths to force their demands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here...let me explain... First...get all teary...then start whining...then demand that everyone should give you what you want the way you want it because you want it to be that way .
Then start stomping...screaming...crying...maybe rolling around on the floor .
Basically...all you really need to do is throw a temper tantrum that would make a 2yr old proud and you will understand the entitlement mentality behind all of this .
" I should get what I want , for the price I want , with the rules I want , because I want it that way .
" This is all driven by people who think that if they do n't like the terms of an agreement that they can unilaterally alter them to meet their needs .
These are the same people that dream up stupid shit ideas like " We reserve the right to alter this agreement at any time without notice " and then scream bloody murder when other like minded idiots lock them into a contract that says the same thing .
I do n't like what the RIAA is doing .
I have n't bought any RIAA music in almost 10 years now .
I also have n't downloaded any music .
I do n't try to rationalize some weird shit reason that says it is ok for me to simply take what I want because they wo n't offer it to me on the terms I want .
The same goes for software .
I VERY rarely buy software , and I pretty much restrict most of my software to F/OSS stuff .
There are a few software package that I have bought , but rather than downloading , I wait for a deal where I can pay the price I want , or I find another product .
It is that simple .
This insane entitlement mentality is getting disgusting , and is ultimately what drives much of behavior the whiners usually throw tantrums about .
Tell me that the RIAA behavior is anything other than greedy entitlement bullshit...just the same as the idiots downloading music .
These battles are escalating battles between large groups of spoiled brats that think that they deserve whatever they demand on the terms they demand and they will go to great lengths to force their demands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here...let me explain...  First...get all teary...then start whining...then demand that everyone should give you what you want the way you want it because you want it to be that way.
Then start stomping...screaming...crying...maybe rolling around on the floor.
Basically...all you really need to do is throw a temper tantrum that would make a 2yr old proud and you will understand the entitlement mentality behind all of this.
"I should get what I want, for the price I want, with the rules I want, because I want it that way.
"  This is all driven by people who think that if they don't like the terms of an agreement that they can unilaterally alter them to meet their needs.
These are the same people that dream up stupid shit ideas like "We reserve the right to alter this agreement at any time without notice" and then scream bloody murder when other like minded idiots lock them into a contract that says the same thing.
I don't like what the RIAA is doing.
I haven't bought any RIAA music in almost 10 years now.
I also haven't downloaded any music.
I don't try to rationalize some weird shit reason that says it is ok for me to simply take what I want because they won't offer it to me on the terms I want.
The same goes for software.
I VERY rarely buy software, and I pretty much restrict most of my software to F/OSS stuff.
There are a few software package that I have bought, but rather than downloading, I wait for a deal where I can pay the price I want, or I find another product.
It is that simple.
This insane entitlement mentality is getting disgusting, and is ultimately what drives much of behavior the whiners usually throw tantrums about.
Tell me that the RIAA behavior is anything other than greedy entitlement bullshit...just the same as the idiots downloading music.
These battles are escalating battles between large groups of spoiled brats that think that they deserve whatever they demand on the terms they demand and they will go to great lengths to force their demands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101250</id>
	<title>apple needs non aio systems and mini is weak pro i</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258196880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>apple needs non aio systems and mini is weak pro is very over priced.</p><p>People do not want to be stuck with one screen and the mini is weak and priced high next to other systems Laptop cpu 2gb ram, on board video, 160GB hd at $600?</p><p>where is the $1000-$1500 system the imac are poor priced there $1200 for on board video? $1,499.00 and only dual core + 4670 graphics with 256MB? you can get core i7 systems with screen and better video card at that price. $2000+$200 for a core i7 imac? and only 4850 graphics with 512MB?</p><p>The $2,499.00 mac pro comes with a MUCH WEAKER VIDEO CARD, LESS HD SPACE and NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB for $1000 - $300 more then a imac with a screen build in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>apple needs non aio systems and mini is weak pro is very over priced.People do not want to be stuck with one screen and the mini is weak and priced high next to other systems Laptop cpu 2gb ram , on board video , 160GB hd at $ 600 ? where is the $ 1000- $ 1500 system the imac are poor priced there $ 1200 for on board video ?
$ 1,499.00 and only dual core + 4670 graphics with 256MB ?
you can get core i7 systems with screen and better video card at that price .
$ 2000 + $ 200 for a core i7 imac ?
and only 4850 graphics with 512MB ? The $ 2,499.00 mac pro comes with a MUCH WEAKER VIDEO CARD , LESS HD SPACE and NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB for $ 1000 - $ 300 more then a imac with a screen build in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>apple needs non aio systems and mini is weak pro is very over priced.People do not want to be stuck with one screen and the mini is weak and priced high next to other systems Laptop cpu 2gb ram, on board video, 160GB hd at $600?where is the $1000-$1500 system the imac are poor priced there $1200 for on board video?
$1,499.00 and only dual core + 4670 graphics with 256MB?
you can get core i7 systems with screen and better video card at that price.
$2000+$200 for a core i7 imac?
and only 4850 graphics with 512MB?The $2,499.00 mac pro comes with a MUCH WEAKER VIDEO CARD, LESS HD SPACE and NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB for $1000 - $300 more then a imac with a screen build in?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102576</id>
	<title>Evil wins again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258207080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't wait for Appl&amp;euro karma to catch up with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for Appl&amp;euro karma to catch up with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for Appl&amp;euro karma to catch up with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101918</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258201860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*whoosh!*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* whoosh !
*</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*whoosh!
*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101402</id>
	<title>Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1258198020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html" title="bitlaw.com">17 USC 117</a> [bitlaw.com].</p><p>Psystar may not have operated within the letter of the law, but they certainly operated within the spirit, and their process would have been legal with some minor tweaks. They lost on a technicality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>17 USC 117 [ bitlaw.com ] .Psystar may not have operated within the letter of the law , but they certainly operated within the spirit , and their process would have been legal with some minor tweaks .
They lost on a technicality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>17 USC 117 [bitlaw.com].Psystar may not have operated within the letter of the law, but they certainly operated within the spirit, and their process would have been legal with some minor tweaks.
They lost on a technicality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101202</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1258196520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.</p></div><p>This statement seems silly on the face of it, and would benefit from some, you know, supporting evidence.</p><p>Mac's marketshare has been steadily increasing for quite some time now. Not to mention that I know lots o' Windows folks who swear by HP/Dell/Sony (pick one) for their personal computers, and Unix/Linux admins who will only buy Sun or SGI or whatever.</p><p>Even outside of the computer realm, people become enamored of particular brands all the time - be it automobiles, televisions, appliances... whatever. And once they lock themselves into that mindset, it is not easy for them to change their opinions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OS X is a decent operating system , but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor .
Might as well write off Apple as a player now , as it 's unlikely they 'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.This statement seems silly on the face of it , and would benefit from some , you know , supporting evidence.Mac 's marketshare has been steadily increasing for quite some time now .
Not to mention that I know lots o ' Windows folks who swear by HP/Dell/Sony ( pick one ) for their personal computers , and Unix/Linux admins who will only buy Sun or SGI or whatever.Even outside of the computer realm , people become enamored of particular brands all the time - be it automobiles , televisions , appliances... whatever. And once they lock themselves into that mindset , it is not easy for them to change their opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor.
Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.This statement seems silly on the face of it, and would benefit from some, you know, supporting evidence.Mac's marketshare has been steadily increasing for quite some time now.
Not to mention that I know lots o' Windows folks who swear by HP/Dell/Sony (pick one) for their personal computers, and Unix/Linux admins who will only buy Sun or SGI or whatever.Even outside of the computer realm, people become enamored of particular brands all the time - be it automobiles, televisions, appliances... whatever. And once they lock themselves into that mindset, it is not easy for them to change their opinions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101148</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258196160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um... <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/" title="apple.com">Darwin</a> [apple.com]
<p>
Oh yeah, don't forget CUPS, WEBKIT, and a few other useful tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... Darwin [ apple.com ] Oh yeah , do n't forget CUPS , WEBKIT , and a few other useful tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... Darwin [apple.com]

Oh yeah, don't forget CUPS, WEBKIT, and a few other useful tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104280</id>
	<title>Re:How far would some get by selling per unlocked</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1258226160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How far would some get by selling per unlocked iphones?</p></div><p>I haven't seen any places selling unlocked iPhones, but I've seen plenty that will unlock the one you already have for a price, and they don't hide. Two malls nearby both have at least one each, and they put up a sign, "UNLOCK YOUR IPHONE", very visible right in front of them.</p><p>Then again, this is Canada, not the Land of the Free, so...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How far would some get by selling per unlocked iphones ? I have n't seen any places selling unlocked iPhones , but I 've seen plenty that will unlock the one you already have for a price , and they do n't hide .
Two malls nearby both have at least one each , and they put up a sign , " UNLOCK YOUR IPHONE " , very visible right in front of them.Then again , this is Canada , not the Land of the Free , so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How far would some get by selling per unlocked iphones?I haven't seen any places selling unlocked iPhones, but I've seen plenty that will unlock the one you already have for a price, and they don't hide.
Two malls nearby both have at least one each, and they put up a sign, "UNLOCK YOUR IPHONE", very visible right in front of them.Then again, this is Canada, not the Land of the Free, so...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102818</id>
	<title>I'm confused</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1258209480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In any other case the slashdot crowd would be raging and the megacorp who crushed the small upstart's website would be hacked, but wouldn't be visible because of the simultanious DDoS attack.  Only because the megacorp is Apple and the rules with them are somehow different.</p><p>Seriously.  Find me another case where Slashdot cheers a EULA being upheld.  Find me another case where a DMCA attack is applauded.  Listen up ya numbbuts, EULAs are always evil.  The DMCA is always evil.  Even when Steve Jobs is crushing a small competitor.  What Pystar was doing may be illegal (I'd argue that point though) but I double dog dare any fanboy to stand up here and defend the MORAL position Apple took.</p><p>Either what Apple sells in those boxes are full copies of OS X or they are upgrades.  Apple insists they are full copies when it suits their arguments AND equally insists they are mere upgrades when they need to crush Pystar.  Make up yer fracking minds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In any other case the slashdot crowd would be raging and the megacorp who crushed the small upstart 's website would be hacked , but would n't be visible because of the simultanious DDoS attack .
Only because the megacorp is Apple and the rules with them are somehow different.Seriously .
Find me another case where Slashdot cheers a EULA being upheld .
Find me another case where a DMCA attack is applauded .
Listen up ya numbbuts , EULAs are always evil .
The DMCA is always evil .
Even when Steve Jobs is crushing a small competitor .
What Pystar was doing may be illegal ( I 'd argue that point though ) but I double dog dare any fanboy to stand up here and defend the MORAL position Apple took.Either what Apple sells in those boxes are full copies of OS X or they are upgrades .
Apple insists they are full copies when it suits their arguments AND equally insists they are mere upgrades when they need to crush Pystar .
Make up yer fracking minds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In any other case the slashdot crowd would be raging and the megacorp who crushed the small upstart's website would be hacked, but wouldn't be visible because of the simultanious DDoS attack.
Only because the megacorp is Apple and the rules with them are somehow different.Seriously.
Find me another case where Slashdot cheers a EULA being upheld.
Find me another case where a DMCA attack is applauded.
Listen up ya numbbuts, EULAs are always evil.
The DMCA is always evil.
Even when Steve Jobs is crushing a small competitor.
What Pystar was doing may be illegal (I'd argue that point though) but I double dog dare any fanboy to stand up here and defend the MORAL position Apple took.Either what Apple sells in those boxes are full copies of OS X or they are upgrades.
Apple insists they are full copies when it suits their arguments AND equally insists they are mere upgrades when they need to crush Pystar.
Make up yer fracking minds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102054</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1258202700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I know lots o' Windows folks who swear by [...] Sony</p></div></blockquote><p>If they like Sony notebooks that must be because they're in love with Num-Lock.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know lots o ' Windows folks who swear by [ ... ] SonyIf they like Sony notebooks that must be because they 're in love with Num-Lock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know lots o' Windows folks who swear by [...] SonyIf they like Sony notebooks that must be because they're in love with Num-Lock.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101430</id>
	<title>Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258198260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/" title="apple.com">APSL</a> [apple.com] covers<br>1) bootx<br>2) darwin kernel</p><p>apple can't have it both ways, you cant pretend to be open then sue the crap out of anybody who uses that code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>APSL [ apple.com ] covers1 ) bootx2 ) darwin kernelapple ca n't have it both ways , you cant pretend to be open then sue the crap out of anybody who uses that code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>APSL [apple.com] covers1) bootx2) darwin kernelapple can't have it both ways, you cant pretend to be open then sue the crap out of anybody who uses that code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101236</id>
	<title>Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict</title>
	<author>DurendalMac</author>
	<datestamp>1258196760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think even those who thought Psystar was awesome would be saying, "I told you so." Christ, the writing was on the wall from the beginning. Apple can spend more on hordes of lawyers than Psystar can gross in a year. They were dead meat from the get-go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think even those who thought Psystar was awesome would be saying , " I told you so .
" Christ , the writing was on the wall from the beginning .
Apple can spend more on hordes of lawyers than Psystar can gross in a year .
They were dead meat from the get-go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think even those who thought Psystar was awesome would be saying, "I told you so.
" Christ, the writing was on the wall from the beginning.
Apple can spend more on hordes of lawyers than Psystar can gross in a year.
They were dead meat from the get-go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103136</id>
	<title>Copyright and the right to tell you what to do?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1258213740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright used to be the right to copy something for sale.  Now copyright is that and a lot more.  When did copyright holders gain the right to control how you access the works or determine whether or not you can make a backup, time shift, format shift or anything currently protected under fair use?  And when did copyright holders gain the right to tell a user that he cannot run software on any hardware he chooses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright used to be the right to copy something for sale .
Now copyright is that and a lot more .
When did copyright holders gain the right to control how you access the works or determine whether or not you can make a backup , time shift , format shift or anything currently protected under fair use ?
And when did copyright holders gain the right to tell a user that he can not run software on any hardware he chooses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright used to be the right to copy something for sale.
Now copyright is that and a lot more.
When did copyright holders gain the right to control how you access the works or determine whether or not you can make a backup, time shift, format shift or anything currently protected under fair use?
And when did copyright holders gain the right to tell a user that he cannot run software on any hardware he chooses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101272</id>
	<title>Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict</title>
	<author>arcticinfantry</author>
	<datestamp>1258197060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.  As a user of software, I'm always in favor of something that expands my rights as a user when it comes to software licenses.  To say that you can't have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software after it is purchased seems ridiculous to me.  PJ's got a completely anti-consumer stance on this one, and her zealousness about it and others opinions are very off-putting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
As a user of software , I 'm always in favor of something that expands my rights as a user when it comes to software licenses .
To say that you ca n't have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software after it is purchased seems ridiculous to me .
PJ 's got a completely anti-consumer stance on this one , and her zealousness about it and others opinions are very off-putting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
As a user of software, I'm always in favor of something that expands my rights as a user when it comes to software licenses.
To say that you can't have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software after it is purchased seems ridiculous to me.
PJ's got a completely anti-consumer stance on this one, and her zealousness about it and others opinions are very off-putting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102676</id>
	<title>Encryption Keys??  (is Apple blowing smoke?)</title>
	<author>burris</author>
	<datestamp>1258207920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[Apple] has used lock-and-key technological measures to prevent Mac OS X from operating<br>on non-Apple computers.  This involved the use of a &ldquo;kernel&rdquo; extension, which is software that<br>is executed and becomes part of the operating system on an Apple computer.  The kernel<br>extension would communicate with other kernel extensions to locate the decryption keys in the<br>hardware, which then would unlock the encrypted files.</p><p>[...]</p><p>Psystar contends that Apple&rsquo;s<br>anticircumvention technology was ineffective because the decryption key for circumvention is<br>publicly available on the internet</p><p>[...]</p><p>Here, when the decryption key was not employed, the encryption<br>effectively worked to prevent access to Mac OS X.  And that is all that is required.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is news to me!  I do not believe that there are any keys embedded in any shipping Intel Macs.  In fact, I am pretty sure that OSX will install cleanly on any PC similarly equipped to a Mac and has EFI firmware.  Even PCs without EFI, all you need is special bootloader to start executing the kernel, then OSX runs unmodified.  Otherwise you wouldn't be able to install it from the retail DVD.  I have seen it done on Dell Netbooks.</p><p>Googling for these mysterious keys turned up nothing.</p><p>Is Apple lying to the court?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Apple ] has used lock-and-key technological measures to prevent Mac OS X from operatingon non-Apple computers .
This involved the use of a    kernel    extension , which is software thatis executed and becomes part of the operating system on an Apple computer .
The kernelextension would communicate with other kernel extensions to locate the decryption keys in thehardware , which then would unlock the encrypted files. [ .. .
] Psystar contends that Apple    santicircumvention technology was ineffective because the decryption key for circumvention ispublicly available on the internet [ ... ] Here , when the decryption key was not employed , the encryptioneffectively worked to prevent access to Mac OS X. And that is all that is required.This is news to me !
I do not believe that there are any keys embedded in any shipping Intel Macs .
In fact , I am pretty sure that OSX will install cleanly on any PC similarly equipped to a Mac and has EFI firmware .
Even PCs without EFI , all you need is special bootloader to start executing the kernel , then OSX runs unmodified .
Otherwise you would n't be able to install it from the retail DVD .
I have seen it done on Dell Netbooks.Googling for these mysterious keys turned up nothing.Is Apple lying to the court ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Apple] has used lock-and-key technological measures to prevent Mac OS X from operatingon non-Apple computers.
This involved the use of a “kernel” extension, which is software thatis executed and becomes part of the operating system on an Apple computer.
The kernelextension would communicate with other kernel extensions to locate the decryption keys in thehardware, which then would unlock the encrypted files.[...
]Psystar contends that Apple’santicircumvention technology was ineffective because the decryption key for circumvention ispublicly available on the internet[...]Here, when the decryption key was not employed, the encryptioneffectively worked to prevent access to Mac OS X.  And that is all that is required.This is news to me!
I do not believe that there are any keys embedded in any shipping Intel Macs.
In fact, I am pretty sure that OSX will install cleanly on any PC similarly equipped to a Mac and has EFI firmware.
Even PCs without EFI, all you need is special bootloader to start executing the kernel, then OSX runs unmodified.
Otherwise you wouldn't be able to install it from the retail DVD.
I have seen it done on Dell Netbooks.Googling for these mysterious keys turned up nothing.Is Apple lying to the court?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103856</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258221000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those who know nothing of history are doomed to look like idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who know nothing of history are doomed to look like idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who know nothing of history are doomed to look like idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105982</id>
	<title>Re:Encryption Keys?? (is Apple blowing smoke?)</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1258304280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is news to me! I do not believe that there are any keys embedded in any shipping Intel Macs. In fact, I am pretty sure that OSX will install cleanly on any PC similarly equipped to a Mac and has EFI firmware.</p></div><p>Certain key Apple programs, including the desktop and Finder, require a decryption key in order to run. Said key is in the actual Apple hardware (the embedded controller, IIRC).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is news to me !
I do not believe that there are any keys embedded in any shipping Intel Macs .
In fact , I am pretty sure that OSX will install cleanly on any PC similarly equipped to a Mac and has EFI firmware.Certain key Apple programs , including the desktop and Finder , require a decryption key in order to run .
Said key is in the actual Apple hardware ( the embedded controller , IIRC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is news to me!
I do not believe that there are any keys embedded in any shipping Intel Macs.
In fact, I am pretty sure that OSX will install cleanly on any PC similarly equipped to a Mac and has EFI firmware.Certain key Apple programs, including the desktop and Finder, require a decryption key in order to run.
Said key is in the actual Apple hardware (the embedded controller, IIRC).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101420</id>
	<title>Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1258198200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This particular type of derivative work is also known as an "adaptation", which is allowed by <a href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html" title="bitlaw.com">17 USC 117</a> [bitlaw.com] since it's necessary to make OS X work with a non-Apple machine. Psystar just wasn't careful enough about the order in which they did things: to stay within the letter of the law, they should have sold the copy of OS X to their end user first, then made the adaptation on the user's behalf, instead of making the adaptation first and then selling a copy of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This particular type of derivative work is also known as an " adaptation " , which is allowed by 17 USC 117 [ bitlaw.com ] since it 's necessary to make OS X work with a non-Apple machine .
Psystar just was n't careful enough about the order in which they did things : to stay within the letter of the law , they should have sold the copy of OS X to their end user first , then made the adaptation on the user 's behalf , instead of making the adaptation first and then selling a copy of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This particular type of derivative work is also known as an "adaptation", which is allowed by 17 USC 117 [bitlaw.com] since it's necessary to make OS X work with a non-Apple machine.
Psystar just wasn't careful enough about the order in which they did things: to stay within the letter of the law, they should have sold the copy of OS X to their end user first, then made the adaptation on the user's behalf, instead of making the adaptation first and then selling a copy of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105146</id>
	<title>Re:Encryption Keys?? (is Apple blowing smoke?)</title>
	<author>bushing</author>
	<datestamp>1258294560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Googling for these mysterious keys turned up nothing.</p><p>Is Apple lying to the court?</p></div><p>You're just looking in the wrong places.  There are two 128-bit constants stored in the System Management Controller chip (alongside fan speeds and temperature info) in the keys "OSK0" and "OSK1"; the first time someone accidentally dumped these seems to have been in <a href="http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3078961&amp;postcount=13" title="macrumors.com">this forum post</a> [macrumors.com].  The scheme is documented a bit further in a couple of artictles: <a href="http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/" title="osxbook.com">"TPM DRM" In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won't Die</a> [osxbook.com] and <a href="http://tgwbd.org/darwin/binaryprotection.html" title="tgwbd.org">Darwin/x86: Mac OS X Binary Protection</a> [tgwbd.org].  I'll leave it to you to manually decode the keys into ASCII, but will point out that they are normally retrieved from the hardware by a kext called "Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext".  The reason your "special bootloader" works on vanilla hardware is that it replaces that kext with a version that contains the keys hardcoded into it; it will never install on any machine without replacing or patching that kext, EFI or not.   (All of the bootloaders that can use unmodified installation media patch or inject this kext before passing control to the loaded XNU kernel.)
<br> <br>
If you've gotten to the point where you're patching that kext, there's not much else that can be done to stop you, which is why  they gave the kext its name and included the following plain-text string in the binary:</p><blockquote><div><p>Your karma check for today:<br>
There once was was a user that whined<br>
his existing OS was so blind,<br>
he'd do better to pirate<br>
an OS that ran great<br>
but found his hardware declined.<br>
Please don't steal Mac OS!<br>
Really, that's way uncool.<br>
   (C) Apple Computer, Inc.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Googling for these mysterious keys turned up nothing.Is Apple lying to the court ? You 're just looking in the wrong places .
There are two 128-bit constants stored in the System Management Controller chip ( alongside fan speeds and temperature info ) in the keys " OSK0 " and " OSK1 " ; the first time someone accidentally dumped these seems to have been in this forum post [ macrumors.com ] .
The scheme is documented a bit further in a couple of artictles : " TPM DRM " In Mac OS X : A Myth That Wo n't Die [ osxbook.com ] and Darwin/x86 : Mac OS X Binary Protection [ tgwbd.org ] .
I 'll leave it to you to manually decode the keys into ASCII , but will point out that they are normally retrieved from the hardware by a kext called " Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext " .
The reason your " special bootloader " works on vanilla hardware is that it replaces that kext with a version that contains the keys hardcoded into it ; it will never install on any machine without replacing or patching that kext , EFI or not .
( All of the bootloaders that can use unmodified installation media patch or inject this kext before passing control to the loaded XNU kernel .
) If you 've gotten to the point where you 're patching that kext , there 's not much else that can be done to stop you , which is why they gave the kext its name and included the following plain-text string in the binary : Your karma check for today : There once was was a user that whined his existing OS was so blind , he 'd do better to pirate an OS that ran great but found his hardware declined .
Please do n't steal Mac OS !
Really , that 's way uncool .
( C ) Apple Computer , Inc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Googling for these mysterious keys turned up nothing.Is Apple lying to the court?You're just looking in the wrong places.
There are two 128-bit constants stored in the System Management Controller chip (alongside fan speeds and temperature info) in the keys "OSK0" and "OSK1"; the first time someone accidentally dumped these seems to have been in this forum post [macrumors.com].
The scheme is documented a bit further in a couple of artictles: "TPM DRM" In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won't Die [osxbook.com] and Darwin/x86: Mac OS X Binary Protection [tgwbd.org].
I'll leave it to you to manually decode the keys into ASCII, but will point out that they are normally retrieved from the hardware by a kext called "Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext".
The reason your "special bootloader" works on vanilla hardware is that it replaces that kext with a version that contains the keys hardcoded into it; it will never install on any machine without replacing or patching that kext, EFI or not.
(All of the bootloaders that can use unmodified installation media patch or inject this kext before passing control to the loaded XNU kernel.
)
 
If you've gotten to the point where you're patching that kext, there's not much else that can be done to stop you, which is why  they gave the kext its name and included the following plain-text string in the binary:Your karma check for today:
There once was was a user that whined
his existing OS was so blind,
he'd do better to pirate
an OS that ran great
but found his hardware declined.
Please don't steal Mac OS!
Really, that's way uncool.
(C) Apple Computer, Inc.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105562</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258298220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm. CUPS is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUPS#History" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">not from Apple</a> [wikipedia.org], and WebKit has to be OSS (LGPL) since it's a derivative of KHTML, which is also LGPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm .
CUPS is not from Apple [ wikipedia.org ] , and WebKit has to be OSS ( LGPL ) since it 's a derivative of KHTML , which is also LGPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm.
CUPS is not from Apple [wikipedia.org], and WebKit has to be OSS (LGPL) since it's a derivative of KHTML, which is also LGPL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105708</id>
	<title>Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1258299660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions.</p></div><p>So they never actually modified Apple's software - they just adjusted the settings and added some new plugins of their own (sort of like Bob's PC and Bait removing something from Windows and installing a driver for their their own Fish-O-Matic).</p><p>Apple feels that this alone is sufficient to constitute a derived work.</p><p>Forget anti-GPL fanboys; Apple is <em>way</em> more viral than anyone's ever claimed RMS and his licenses to be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically , it made three modifications : ( 1 ) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar 's computers ; ( 2 ) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files ; and ( 3 ) adding non-Apple kernel extensions.So they never actually modified Apple 's software - they just adjusted the settings and added some new plugins of their own ( sort of like Bob 's PC and Bait removing something from Windows and installing a driver for their their own Fish-O-Matic ) .Apple feels that this alone is sufficient to constitute a derived work.Forget anti-GPL fanboys ; Apple is way more viral than anyone 's ever claimed RMS and his licenses to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions.So they never actually modified Apple's software - they just adjusted the settings and added some new plugins of their own (sort of like Bob's PC and Bait removing something from Windows and installing a driver for their their own Fish-O-Matic).Apple feels that this alone is sufficient to constitute a derived work.Forget anti-GPL fanboys; Apple is way more viral than anyone's ever claimed RMS and his licenses to be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102736</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1258208580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This statement seems silly on the face of it, and would benefit from some, you know, supporting evidence.</p></div><p>My experience every time:<br>I pick an Apple model I could use, and compare to a similar PC - no big difference.<br>I pick the PC I want, try to find something Apple has matching that - Apple loses bigtime.</p><p>The only explanation I have for Apple's success is that people don't feel the difference... computers like all have a gigahertz multicore processors, gigs of memory, terabytes of disk  hundreds of GPU shaders, all sorts of ports and wireless and whatever. That only form factor and software really matters, the limited and expensive selection of everything else does not. I'm guessing that's true for many people, honestly I've been a power user almost all my life but lately even the most bloated abominations of software malpractice run decently. More speed is starting to be "nice to have", nothing more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This statement seems silly on the face of it , and would benefit from some , you know , supporting evidence.My experience every time : I pick an Apple model I could use , and compare to a similar PC - no big difference.I pick the PC I want , try to find something Apple has matching that - Apple loses bigtime.The only explanation I have for Apple 's success is that people do n't feel the difference... computers like all have a gigahertz multicore processors , gigs of memory , terabytes of disk hundreds of GPU shaders , all sorts of ports and wireless and whatever .
That only form factor and software really matters , the limited and expensive selection of everything else does not .
I 'm guessing that 's true for many people , honestly I 've been a power user almost all my life but lately even the most bloated abominations of software malpractice run decently .
More speed is starting to be " nice to have " , nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This statement seems silly on the face of it, and would benefit from some, you know, supporting evidence.My experience every time:I pick an Apple model I could use, and compare to a similar PC - no big difference.I pick the PC I want, try to find something Apple has matching that - Apple loses bigtime.The only explanation I have for Apple's success is that people don't feel the difference... computers like all have a gigahertz multicore processors, gigs of memory, terabytes of disk  hundreds of GPU shaders, all sorts of ports and wireless and whatever.
That only form factor and software really matters, the limited and expensive selection of everything else does not.
I'm guessing that's true for many people, honestly I've been a power user almost all my life but lately even the most bloated abominations of software malpractice run decently.
More speed is starting to be "nice to have", nothing more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122</id>
	<title>The only thing lamer than this verdict</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258195920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only thing lamer than this verdict is reading PJ crowing over it at Groklaw. It was great when SCO, a genuine bad guy, was getting kicked around. However in this instance her smug self-righteous I-told-you-so BS is even more obnoxious than the triumph of the EULA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing lamer than this verdict is reading PJ crowing over it at Groklaw .
It was great when SCO , a genuine bad guy , was getting kicked around .
However in this instance her smug self-righteous I-told-you-so BS is even more obnoxious than the triumph of the EULA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing lamer than this verdict is reading PJ crowing over it at Groklaw.
It was great when SCO, a genuine bad guy, was getting kicked around.
However in this instance her smug self-righteous I-told-you-so BS is even more obnoxious than the triumph of the EULA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102110</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1258203060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Mac's marketshare has been steadily increasing for quite some time now.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm curious where these statistics are, because the only thing I have found through my own searching on this matter is that Macs have been selling a lot better, but then PCs have been selling far more than before too (mentioned in quite a few articles from this year and last).</p><p>Care to provide some sources?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac 's marketshare has been steadily increasing for quite some time now.I 'm curious where these statistics are , because the only thing I have found through my own searching on this matter is that Macs have been selling a lot better , but then PCs have been selling far more than before too ( mentioned in quite a few articles from this year and last ) .Care to provide some sources ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac's marketshare has been steadily increasing for quite some time now.I'm curious where these statistics are, because the only thing I have found through my own searching on this matter is that Macs have been selling a lot better, but then PCs have been selling far more than before too (mentioned in quite a few articles from this year and last).Care to provide some sources?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101666</id>
	<title>Re:apple needs non aio systems and mini is weak pr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258200060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To use Slashdot's favorite car analogy, you can buy a cheap sedan for $20k. Does that mean BMW should stop being stupid and start selling cheap sedans? After all, they're selling cars made out of metal and plastic like everybody else.</p><p>GB2 putting a six-foot spoiler on your Civic (or the computer equivalent thereof). And try to learn to spell and/or capitalize on the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To use Slashdot 's favorite car analogy , you can buy a cheap sedan for $ 20k .
Does that mean BMW should stop being stupid and start selling cheap sedans ?
After all , they 're selling cars made out of metal and plastic like everybody else.GB2 putting a six-foot spoiler on your Civic ( or the computer equivalent thereof ) .
And try to learn to spell and/or capitalize on the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To use Slashdot's favorite car analogy, you can buy a cheap sedan for $20k.
Does that mean BMW should stop being stupid and start selling cheap sedans?
After all, they're selling cars made out of metal and plastic like everybody else.GB2 putting a six-foot spoiler on your Civic (or the computer equivalent thereof).
And try to learn to spell and/or capitalize on the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104518</id>
	<title>Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>MobyTurbo</author>
	<datestamp>1258315740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All this goes to show is that, contrary to the statements of some Slashdotters, Psystar did not re-install OS X as-is.   They replaced key segments, including the bootloader and kernel extensions, in order to get it to install on commodity hardware.   That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work, thereby violating copyright laws.   This is not about the EULA:</p><p> <i>"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads. "Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."</i> </p><p>I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue.</p></div><p>Maybe so, but what does it say about the suitability for copyright law that it is so closely mapped to laws originally meant to protect printed works, that don't really hold true for software? Assuming of course that PsyStar hadn't used master copies and truly pirated copies of those master copies to imprint machines with, but had instead bought every single OS X disk and modified them individually, would Apple have lost any property via copyright infringement? They really should only have the EULA to fall back on then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this goes to show is that , contrary to the statements of some Slashdotters , Psystar did not re-install OS X as-is .
They replaced key segments , including the bootloader and kernel extensions , in order to get it to install on commodity hardware .
That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work , thereby violating copyright laws .
This is not about the EULA : " Psystar infringed Apple 's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X , " the ruling reads .
" Specifically , it made three modifications : ( 1 ) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar 's computers ; ( 2 ) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files ; and ( 3 ) adding non-Apple kernel extensions .
" I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue.Maybe so , but what does it say about the suitability for copyright law that it is so closely mapped to laws originally meant to protect printed works , that do n't really hold true for software ?
Assuming of course that PsyStar had n't used master copies and truly pirated copies of those master copies to imprint machines with , but had instead bought every single OS X disk and modified them individually , would Apple have lost any property via copyright infringement ?
They really should only have the EULA to fall back on then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this goes to show is that, contrary to the statements of some Slashdotters, Psystar did not re-install OS X as-is.
They replaced key segments, including the bootloader and kernel extensions, in order to get it to install on commodity hardware.
That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work, thereby violating copyright laws.
This is not about the EULA: "Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads.
"Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions.
" I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue.Maybe so, but what does it say about the suitability for copyright law that it is so closely mapped to laws originally meant to protect printed works, that don't really hold true for software?
Assuming of course that PsyStar hadn't used master copies and truly pirated copies of those master copies to imprint machines with, but had instead bought every single OS X disk and modified them individually, would Apple have lost any property via copyright infringement?
They really should only have the EULA to fall back on then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30112010</id>
	<title>Re:You really are confused.</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1258306800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PsyStar is piggy-backing on Apples research and development. They subsidize a lot of apps and the OS itself with the computer sale.</p><p>Apple tried making nice with clones in the past and they reduced their margins, without really expanding the market.</p><p>Now, I think it should be OK for a company to clone a platform or reverse engineer -- but PsyStar has been going well beyond that and selling Apple packages.</p><p>I have to admit -- I'm tempted for a Cheaper Mac that has real expandability -- but PsyStar was an antagonistic parasite and they did it the wrong way. My sentiment on that has not much at all to do with liking or disliking Apple.  The other thing is that they cannot guarantee compatibility with the next OS update.</p><p>And for balance -- I don't have a problem with companies selling unlocked iPhones. However, they have to buy them at the unsubsidized cost, because it's kind of stealing because you are borrowing the money upfront.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PsyStar is piggy-backing on Apples research and development .
They subsidize a lot of apps and the OS itself with the computer sale.Apple tried making nice with clones in the past and they reduced their margins , without really expanding the market.Now , I think it should be OK for a company to clone a platform or reverse engineer -- but PsyStar has been going well beyond that and selling Apple packages.I have to admit -- I 'm tempted for a Cheaper Mac that has real expandability -- but PsyStar was an antagonistic parasite and they did it the wrong way .
My sentiment on that has not much at all to do with liking or disliking Apple .
The other thing is that they can not guarantee compatibility with the next OS update.And for balance -- I do n't have a problem with companies selling unlocked iPhones .
However , they have to buy them at the unsubsidized cost , because it 's kind of stealing because you are borrowing the money upfront .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PsyStar is piggy-backing on Apples research and development.
They subsidize a lot of apps and the OS itself with the computer sale.Apple tried making nice with clones in the past and they reduced their margins, without really expanding the market.Now, I think it should be OK for a company to clone a platform or reverse engineer -- but PsyStar has been going well beyond that and selling Apple packages.I have to admit -- I'm tempted for a Cheaper Mac that has real expandability -- but PsyStar was an antagonistic parasite and they did it the wrong way.
My sentiment on that has not much at all to do with liking or disliking Apple.
The other thing is that they cannot guarantee compatibility with the next OS update.And for balance -- I don't have a problem with companies selling unlocked iPhones.
However, they have to buy them at the unsubsidized cost, because it's kind of stealing because you are borrowing the money upfront.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101284</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258197180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dell is a decent hardware assembler, but few people can be satisfied by a single OS vendor.  Might as well write off Microsoft as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and no longer abuse its monopoly position with Windows...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dell is a decent hardware assembler , but few people can be satisfied by a single OS vendor .
Might as well write off Microsoft as a player now , as it 's unlikely they 'll ever release the death grip and no longer abuse its monopoly position with Windows.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dell is a decent hardware assembler, but few people can be satisfied by a single OS vendor.
Might as well write off Microsoft as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and no longer abuse its monopoly position with Windows...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978</id>
	<title>Too Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258194960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OS X is a decent operating system , but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor .
Might as well write off Apple as a player now , as it 's unlikely they 'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor.
Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101260</id>
	<title>Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258197000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please explain how Psystar is justified in creating an altered derivative work of Apple's copyrighted operating system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please explain how Psystar is justified in creating an altered derivative work of Apple 's copyrighted operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please explain how Psystar is justified in creating an altered derivative work of Apple's copyrighted operating system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101914</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Haeleth</author>
	<datestamp>1258201860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OS X is largely irrelevant to Apple's success or failure.  It's the iPod that their current fortune is built on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OS X is largely irrelevant to Apple 's success or failure .
It 's the iPod that their current fortune is built on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS X is largely irrelevant to Apple's success or failure.
It's the iPod that their current fortune is built on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104178</id>
	<title>Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1258224780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So anyone that has ever written in the margins of a textbook and then resold it is not within light years of the law!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</i></p><p>Except your analogy would only be relevant if you</p><p>1. Ripped out passages of the book<br>2. Inserted some of your own<br>3. Resold the book</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So anyone that has ever written in the margins of a textbook and then resold it is not within light years of the law !
; ) Except your analogy would only be relevant if you1 .
Ripped out passages of the book2 .
Inserted some of your own3 .
Resold the book</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So anyone that has ever written in the margins of a textbook and then resold it is not within light years of the law!
;)Except your analogy would only be relevant if you1.
Ripped out passages of the book2.
Inserted some of your own3.
Resold the book</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101072</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1258195620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh.  Apple is pretty happy where they are.  If their hardware suits you and fits your needs, buy it as necessary.  Otherwise, avoid it.  Many many people have a hard time doing that.  If Apple finds themselves needing to change because of this down the road, they will.  It's that simple.</p><p>If you're building a hackintosh, good for you.  Tinkering with things like that can be fun.  But please don't start acting like Apple is supposed to support you.  Don't install it on production machines.  The hacking part of the hackintosh is supposed to be half the fun anyway.  But that is it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh .
Apple is pretty happy where they are .
If their hardware suits you and fits your needs , buy it as necessary .
Otherwise , avoid it .
Many many people have a hard time doing that .
If Apple finds themselves needing to change because of this down the road , they will .
It 's that simple.If you 're building a hackintosh , good for you .
Tinkering with things like that can be fun .
But please do n't start acting like Apple is supposed to support you .
Do n't install it on production machines .
The hacking part of the hackintosh is supposed to be half the fun anyway .
But that is it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.
Apple is pretty happy where they are.
If their hardware suits you and fits your needs, buy it as necessary.
Otherwise, avoid it.
Many many people have a hard time doing that.
If Apple finds themselves needing to change because of this down the road, they will.
It's that simple.If you're building a hackintosh, good for you.
Tinkering with things like that can be fun.
But please don't start acting like Apple is supposed to support you.
Don't install it on production machines.
The hacking part of the hackintosh is supposed to be half the fun anyway.
But that is it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101616</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258199520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er... Apple *is* a household name now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er... Apple * is * a household name now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er... Apple *is* a household name now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104664</id>
	<title>Re:Encryption Keys?? (is Apple blowing smoke?)</title>
	<author>Hamsterdan</author>
	<datestamp>1258318440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was wondering the same thing. I didn't have to do anything else than use a different bootloader to install Snow on my netbook. Everything worked out of the box except sound and Ethernet (voodooHDA and Attansic kexts took care of that). But everything else is a vanilla install.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering the same thing .
I did n't have to do anything else than use a different bootloader to install Snow on my netbook .
Everything worked out of the box except sound and Ethernet ( voodooHDA and Attansic kexts took care of that ) .
But everything else is a vanilla install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering the same thing.
I didn't have to do anything else than use a different bootloader to install Snow on my netbook.
Everything worked out of the box except sound and Ethernet (voodooHDA and Attansic kexts took care of that).
But everything else is a vanilla install.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103654</id>
	<title>Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1258218900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean to tell me that Apple doesn't have offices and officers who work in Germany?</p><p>I suspect that PearC isn't as brazen as Psystar though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean to tell me that Apple does n't have offices and officers who work in Germany ? I suspect that PearC is n't as brazen as Psystar though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean to tell me that Apple doesn't have offices and officers who work in Germany?I suspect that PearC isn't as brazen as Psystar though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101062</id>
	<title>Re:Too Bad</title>
	<author>mabinogi</author>
	<datestamp>1258195500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right.<br>The single vendor lock-in is just killing them.  They were doing so well when they allowed others to build Mac clones, they should just go back to doing that.  Jobs was obviously an idiot for cancelling the scheme - if he hadn't the company may have been a household name by now, instead on teetering on the brink of disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right.The single vendor lock-in is just killing them .
They were doing so well when they allowed others to build Mac clones , they should just go back to doing that .
Jobs was obviously an idiot for cancelling the scheme - if he had n't the company may have been a household name by now , instead on teetering on the brink of disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.The single vendor lock-in is just killing them.
They were doing so well when they allowed others to build Mac clones, they should just go back to doing that.
Jobs was obviously an idiot for cancelling the scheme - if he hadn't the company may have been a household name by now, instead on teetering on the brink of disaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30109042</id>
	<title>one not necessarily tinfoil-hat theory</title>
	<author>elrond2003</author>
	<datestamp>1258280700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is one way to get access to a sizable ROI based on this scheme.  What PSYSTAR is/was doing is buying an UPGRADE license and installing it on a new computer. What if they succeded and then started to buy Windows/office upgrades distros, cracking the install codes and selling machines with this software installed.  A full windows/office install (Home premium W7 plus Office Pro)  is about $600 the upgrades are about $350, split the difference and you have a pretty good markup on a $400 worth of hardware system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is one way to get access to a sizable ROI based on this scheme .
What PSYSTAR is/was doing is buying an UPGRADE license and installing it on a new computer .
What if they succeded and then started to buy Windows/office upgrades distros , cracking the install codes and selling machines with this software installed .
A full windows/office install ( Home premium W7 plus Office Pro ) is about $ 600 the upgrades are about $ 350 , split the difference and you have a pretty good markup on a $ 400 worth of hardware system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is one way to get access to a sizable ROI based on this scheme.
What PSYSTAR is/was doing is buying an UPGRADE license and installing it on a new computer.
What if they succeded and then started to buy Windows/office upgrades distros, cracking the install codes and selling machines with this software installed.
A full windows/office install (Home premium W7 plus Office Pro)  is about $600 the upgrades are about $350, split the difference and you have a pretty good markup on a $400 worth of hardware system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30111118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30112010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30109784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_1954259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101402
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101616
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101918
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30100952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30112010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30109096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30111118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30101420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30103432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30105146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30109784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30102522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_1954259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_1954259.30104722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
