<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_20_2022250</id>
	<title>iPhone Owners Demand To See Apple Source Code</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258710600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"iPhone owners charging Apple and AT&amp;T with breaking antitrust laws asked a federal judge this week to <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141222/iPhone\_owners\_demand\_to\_see\_Apple\_source\_code">force Apple to hand over the iPhone source code</a>, court documents show. The lawsuit, which was filed in October 2007, accuses Apple and AT&amp;T of violating antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, by agreeing to a multi-year deal that locks US iPhone owners into using the mobile carrier. On Wednesday, the plaintiffs asked US District Court Judge James Ware to compel Apple to produce the source code for the iPhone 1.1.1 software, an update that Apple issued in September 2007. The update crippled iPhones that had been unlocked, or 'jailbroken,' so that they could be used with mobile providers other than AT&amp;T. The iPhone 1.1.1 'bricked' those first-generation iPhones that had been hacked, rendering them useless and wiping all personal data from the device. The plaintiffs say that the source code is necessary  to determine whether all iPhones were given the same 1.1.1 update, and whether it was designed to brick all or just some hacked iPhones."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " iPhone owners charging Apple and AT&amp;T with breaking antitrust laws asked a federal judge this week to force Apple to hand over the iPhone source code , court documents show .
The lawsuit , which was filed in October 2007 , accuses Apple and AT&amp;T of violating antitrust laws , including the Sherman Act , by agreeing to a multi-year deal that locks US iPhone owners into using the mobile carrier .
On Wednesday , the plaintiffs asked US District Court Judge James Ware to compel Apple to produce the source code for the iPhone 1.1.1 software , an update that Apple issued in September 2007 .
The update crippled iPhones that had been unlocked , or 'jailbroken, ' so that they could be used with mobile providers other than AT&amp;T .
The iPhone 1.1.1 'bricked ' those first-generation iPhones that had been hacked , rendering them useless and wiping all personal data from the device .
The plaintiffs say that the source code is necessary to determine whether all iPhones were given the same 1.1.1 update , and whether it was designed to brick all or just some hacked iPhones .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "iPhone owners charging Apple and AT&amp;T with breaking antitrust laws asked a federal judge this week to force Apple to hand over the iPhone source code, court documents show.
The lawsuit, which was filed in October 2007, accuses Apple and AT&amp;T of violating antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, by agreeing to a multi-year deal that locks US iPhone owners into using the mobile carrier.
On Wednesday, the plaintiffs asked US District Court Judge James Ware to compel Apple to produce the source code for the iPhone 1.1.1 software, an update that Apple issued in September 2007.
The update crippled iPhones that had been unlocked, or 'jailbroken,' so that they could be used with mobile providers other than AT&amp;T.
The iPhone 1.1.1 'bricked' those first-generation iPhones that had been hacked, rendering them useless and wiping all personal data from the device.
The plaintiffs say that the source code is necessary  to determine whether all iPhones were given the same 1.1.1 update, and whether it was designed to brick all or just some hacked iPhones.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179538</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258720320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where do you live? I can almost guarantee you live in 'a land of idiots'. Think of it from a more proactive point of view... If someone is looking in my window I can't sneak up behind him and hack his feet off. Why then would a bear trap be ok?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you live ?
I can almost guarantee you live in 'a land of idiots' .
Think of it from a more proactive point of view... If someone is looking in my window I ca n't sneak up behind him and hack his feet off .
Why then would a bear trap be ok ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you live?
I can almost guarantee you live in 'a land of idiots'.
Think of it from a more proactive point of view... If someone is looking in my window I can't sneak up behind him and hack his feet off.
Why then would a bear trap be ok?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30181066</id>
	<title>Re:And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258729680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In California, you are charged sales tax on the FULL price of the phone, not the discounted price. It certainly seems as if you are the rightful owner with this in mind.</p><p>http://bobpage.net/2009/06/09/iphone-sales-tax-is-on-the-unsubsidized-price/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In California , you are charged sales tax on the FULL price of the phone , not the discounted price .
It certainly seems as if you are the rightful owner with this in mind.http : //bobpage.net/2009/06/09/iphone-sales-tax-is-on-the-unsubsidized-price/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In California, you are charged sales tax on the FULL price of the phone, not the discounted price.
It certainly seems as if you are the rightful owner with this in mind.http://bobpage.net/2009/06/09/iphone-sales-tax-is-on-the-unsubsidized-price/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178086</id>
	<title>frist?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258714380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>freist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>freist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>freist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144</id>
	<title>Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258714620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lawsuits are really getting asinine. There has to be some sort of additional punitive costs associated with stupid lawsuits like this.
People do not honor the EULA, jailbreak their iPhones into iBricks and then cry out loud apple bricked their jailbroken devices. If you jailbreak - why the hell you have apple software to update your device?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawsuits are really getting asinine .
There has to be some sort of additional punitive costs associated with stupid lawsuits like this .
People do not honor the EULA , jailbreak their iPhones into iBricks and then cry out loud apple bricked their jailbroken devices .
If you jailbreak - why the hell you have apple software to update your device ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawsuits are really getting asinine.
There has to be some sort of additional punitive costs associated with stupid lawsuits like this.
People do not honor the EULA, jailbreak their iPhones into iBricks and then cry out loud apple bricked their jailbroken devices.
If you jailbreak - why the hell you have apple software to update your device?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30187296</id>
	<title>Re:Same concept between the modded xboxes and this</title>
	<author>hot soldering iron</author>
	<datestamp>1258794780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hope you don't smoke, or you just voided your warranty and Apple doesn't have to fix it. : )</p><p>Looks like Apple has been taking notes from MS on fucking the customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope you do n't smoke , or you just voided your warranty and Apple does n't have to fix it .
: ) Looks like Apple has been taking notes from MS on fucking the customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope you don't smoke, or you just voided your warranty and Apple doesn't have to fix it.
: )Looks like Apple has been taking notes from MS on fucking the customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30181822</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in a land of idiots, and yes you would almost certainly be thrown in jail for such a scenario. In the U.S., criminals injured during a burglary have won huge judgments against building owners. Burglars who were shot have sued and won.<br> <br>Sad but true. So shoot to kill, if you must and things have gone that far that what you're doing is absolutely necessary. You will be in more trouble if they live.<br> <br>(Anon for obv reasons)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in a land of idiots , and yes you would almost certainly be thrown in jail for such a scenario .
In the U.S. , criminals injured during a burglary have won huge judgments against building owners .
Burglars who were shot have sued and won .
Sad but true .
So shoot to kill , if you must and things have gone that far that what you 're doing is absolutely necessary .
You will be in more trouble if they live .
( Anon for obv reasons )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in a land of idiots, and yes you would almost certainly be thrown in jail for such a scenario.
In the U.S., criminals injured during a burglary have won huge judgments against building owners.
Burglars who were shot have sued and won.
Sad but true.
So shoot to kill, if you must and things have gone that far that what you're doing is absolutely necessary.
You will be in more trouble if they live.
(Anon for obv reasons)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30181982</id>
	<title>Re:And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>xrobertcmx</author>
	<datestamp>1258738980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Phones have been bound to contracts for years now, but I have multiple unlocked Nokia's from the original AT&amp;T wireless, the new formerly Cingular at&amp;t wireless, and T-Mobile.  I actually swapped my work sim into my old Nokia because the new Samsung they gave me had no reception.  However the iPhone can not be unlocked by asking the nice folks at the store or looking up the codes online.  No, I have to jailbreak it, something I've not bothered with.  at&amp;t, while absolute and lasting proof of the evil that resides within the souls mankind, is the only cell provider with decent coverage at my house.  I think they jam the others, it makes no sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phones have been bound to contracts for years now , but I have multiple unlocked Nokia 's from the original AT&amp;T wireless , the new formerly Cingular at&amp;t wireless , and T-Mobile .
I actually swapped my work sim into my old Nokia because the new Samsung they gave me had no reception .
However the iPhone can not be unlocked by asking the nice folks at the store or looking up the codes online .
No , I have to jailbreak it , something I 've not bothered with .
at&amp;t , while absolute and lasting proof of the evil that resides within the souls mankind , is the only cell provider with decent coverage at my house .
I think they jam the others , it makes no sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phones have been bound to contracts for years now, but I have multiple unlocked Nokia's from the original AT&amp;T wireless, the new formerly Cingular at&amp;t wireless, and T-Mobile.
I actually swapped my work sim into my old Nokia because the new Samsung they gave me had no reception.
However the iPhone can not be unlocked by asking the nice folks at the store or looking up the codes online.
No, I have to jailbreak it, something I've not bothered with.
at&amp;t, while absolute and lasting proof of the evil that resides within the souls mankind, is the only cell provider with decent coverage at my house.
I think they jam the others, it makes no sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178612</id>
	<title>Re:Same concept between the modded xboxes and this</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1258716300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe there is an important difference:</p><p>XBox:  Hack xbox, get banned from server (offline only).<br>iPhone: Hack iphone, phone no longer boots at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe there is an important difference : XBox : Hack xbox , get banned from server ( offline only ) .iPhone : Hack iphone , phone no longer boots at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe there is an important difference:XBox:  Hack xbox, get banned from server (offline only).iPhone: Hack iphone, phone no longer boots at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179624</id>
	<title>Re:And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1258720800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it.</i></p><p>This seems doubtful - phones have been on contracts, <i>including only one service provider</i>, and things change because the Iphone comes along with 1-2\% market share? I don't thinks so.</p><p>The only thing that's changed is that the Iphone stories get publicity. For all we know, this kind of thing has happened with the major players like Nokia, Samsung, etc, but we'd never hear about it here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now , the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it.This seems doubtful - phones have been on contracts , including only one service provider , and things change because the Iphone comes along with 1-2 \ % market share ?
I do n't thinks so.The only thing that 's changed is that the Iphone stories get publicity .
For all we know , this kind of thing has happened with the major players like Nokia , Samsung , etc , but we 'd never hear about it here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it.This seems doubtful - phones have been on contracts, including only one service provider, and things change because the Iphone comes along with 1-2\% market share?
I don't thinks so.The only thing that's changed is that the Iphone stories get publicity.
For all we know, this kind of thing has happened with the major players like Nokia, Samsung, etc, but we'd never hear about it here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180822</id>
	<title>Re:And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258727880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the <b>iPhone</b> is only unique in that its <b>popular</b> so people actually care that only one service provider can support it</p></div><p>That's not true, it has nothing to do with popularity. The iPhone is the <b>ONLY</b> phone that AT&amp;T <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM\_lock#United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">will not unlock</a> [wikipedia.org] under <a href="http://www.wireless.att.com/answer-center/main.jsp?t=solutionTab&amp;ft=searchTab&amp;ps=solutionPanels&amp;locale=en\_US&amp;\_dyncharset=UTF-8&amp;solutionId=61097&amp;isSrch=Yes" title="att.com" rel="nofollow">any</a> [att.com] circumstance, even after the contract has expired. It's simply unacceptable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now , the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support itThat 's not true , it has nothing to do with popularity .
The iPhone is the ONLY phone that AT&amp;T will not unlock [ wikipedia.org ] under any [ att.com ] circumstance , even after the contract has expired .
It 's simply unacceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support itThat's not true, it has nothing to do with popularity.
The iPhone is the ONLY phone that AT&amp;T will not unlock [wikipedia.org] under any [att.com] circumstance, even after the contract has expired.
It's simply unacceptable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</id>
	<title>And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>Kenja</author>
	<datestamp>1258714560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So long as we're demanding things we're not going to get, go for broke I say.<br> <br>
Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it. I'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple &amp; AT&amp;T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.<br> <br>So even if it comes out of all of this that the "bricking" was targeted, I doubt it will change anything in the end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So long as we 're demanding things we 're not going to get , go for broke I say .
Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now , the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it .
I 'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple &amp; AT&amp;T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware .
So even if it comes out of all of this that the " bricking " was targeted , I doubt it will change anything in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long as we're demanding things we're not going to get, go for broke I say.
Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it.
I'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple &amp; AT&amp;T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.
So even if it comes out of all of this that the "bricking" was targeted, I doubt it will change anything in the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178878</id>
	<title>"Trojan Horse"</title>
	<author>Crash Culligan</author>
	<datestamp>1258717380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call it fluffheaded fantasizing on my part, but I could envision the much-maligned iPhone 1.1.1 update as being part of a <em>wonderful</em> Trojan Horse attack.</p><p>And no, I don't mean against the industry of hacked or modded iPhones, I mean against the industry practice of locking phones to specific carriers in the first place.</p><p>Yeah, it's goofy, I know, but think about it: for a very long time, the mobile networks have been calling the shots and tilting the playing field their way. Phones would be designed to meet those specs and little else. Consider that it took Apple's entry into the cell phone market in the first place to generate this sort of outrage. If it were a lesser device, interchangeable with all the other services out there, do you think enough people would have cared to raise this kind of stink?</p><p>If it turns out that Apple really did write phone-bricking code into patch 1.1.1, <em> <strong>and</strong> </em> they had to do this in order to meet a contractual obligation with AT&amp;T, then I doubt that Apple would be in as much trouble as AT&amp;T. Furthermore, perhaps the FCC, FTC, or some other relevant GOV TLA will give up relinquishing [sic] their duties long enough to investigate just how much the mobile carriers have been stifling their own progress and growth and that of the mobile device industry in the name of quick profits. At least, that's the dream. It's vague and it's fuzzy, but its realization would make me inordinately happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call it fluffheaded fantasizing on my part , but I could envision the much-maligned iPhone 1.1.1 update as being part of a wonderful Trojan Horse attack.And no , I do n't mean against the industry of hacked or modded iPhones , I mean against the industry practice of locking phones to specific carriers in the first place.Yeah , it 's goofy , I know , but think about it : for a very long time , the mobile networks have been calling the shots and tilting the playing field their way .
Phones would be designed to meet those specs and little else .
Consider that it took Apple 's entry into the cell phone market in the first place to generate this sort of outrage .
If it were a lesser device , interchangeable with all the other services out there , do you think enough people would have cared to raise this kind of stink ? If it turns out that Apple really did write phone-bricking code into patch 1.1.1 , and they had to do this in order to meet a contractual obligation with AT&amp;T , then I doubt that Apple would be in as much trouble as AT&amp;T .
Furthermore , perhaps the FCC , FTC , or some other relevant GOV TLA will give up relinquishing [ sic ] their duties long enough to investigate just how much the mobile carriers have been stifling their own progress and growth and that of the mobile device industry in the name of quick profits .
At least , that 's the dream .
It 's vague and it 's fuzzy , but its realization would make me inordinately happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call it fluffheaded fantasizing on my part, but I could envision the much-maligned iPhone 1.1.1 update as being part of a wonderful Trojan Horse attack.And no, I don't mean against the industry of hacked or modded iPhones, I mean against the industry practice of locking phones to specific carriers in the first place.Yeah, it's goofy, I know, but think about it: for a very long time, the mobile networks have been calling the shots and tilting the playing field their way.
Phones would be designed to meet those specs and little else.
Consider that it took Apple's entry into the cell phone market in the first place to generate this sort of outrage.
If it were a lesser device, interchangeable with all the other services out there, do you think enough people would have cared to raise this kind of stink?If it turns out that Apple really did write phone-bricking code into patch 1.1.1,  and  they had to do this in order to meet a contractual obligation with AT&amp;T, then I doubt that Apple would be in as much trouble as AT&amp;T.
Furthermore, perhaps the FCC, FTC, or some other relevant GOV TLA will give up relinquishing [sic] their duties long enough to investigate just how much the mobile carriers have been stifling their own progress and growth and that of the mobile device industry in the name of quick profits.
At least, that's the dream.
It's vague and it's fuzzy, but its realization would make me inordinately happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179118</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1258718460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I read every EULA, I'd have no time to use the product.</p><p>Thanks god I live in a country where EULA's aren't legally binding, since they're only disclosed after completion of sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I read every EULA , I 'd have no time to use the product.Thanks god I live in a country where EULA 's are n't legally binding , since they 're only disclosed after completion of sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I read every EULA, I'd have no time to use the product.Thanks god I live in a country where EULA's aren't legally binding, since they're only disclosed after completion of sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1258715760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that anyone who jailbroke their phone was an idiot for allowing updates.</p><p>On the other hand, the difference between "Ooops, your changed binary got patched in the wrong place" and "if AuthenticBinary() then NukeDevice() else Patch()" is roughly the same as what happens to a burglar when he steps on the broken glass after breaking into my house Vs me planting bear traps next to each of my windows.</p><p>The first is schadenfreude, the latter legally actionable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that anyone who jailbroke their phone was an idiot for allowing updates.On the other hand , the difference between " Ooops , your changed binary got patched in the wrong place " and " if AuthenticBinary ( ) then NukeDevice ( ) else Patch ( ) " is roughly the same as what happens to a burglar when he steps on the broken glass after breaking into my house Vs me planting bear traps next to each of my windows.The first is schadenfreude , the latter legally actionable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that anyone who jailbroke their phone was an idiot for allowing updates.On the other hand, the difference between "Ooops, your changed binary got patched in the wrong place" and "if AuthenticBinary() then NukeDevice() else Patch()" is roughly the same as what happens to a burglar when he steps on the broken glass after breaking into my house Vs me planting bear traps next to each of my windows.The first is schadenfreude, the latter legally actionable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178924</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258717560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you live in a place where the latter is legally actionable, you live in a land of idiots. The burglar is responsible for his injuries in either case. In both cases, had he not been breaking the law and violating the homeowners rights, he would never have been injured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you live in a place where the latter is legally actionable , you live in a land of idiots .
The burglar is responsible for his injuries in either case .
In both cases , had he not been breaking the law and violating the homeowners rights , he would never have been injured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you live in a place where the latter is legally actionable, you live in a land of idiots.
The burglar is responsible for his injuries in either case.
In both cases, had he not been breaking the law and violating the homeowners rights, he would never have been injured.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179478</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>WgT2</author>
	<datestamp>1258720080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, my first thought was:</p><blockquote><div><p>Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!</p></div></blockquote><p> Sigh, then I actually read the post... so,</p><blockquote><div><p>Ha! Ha!</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , my first thought was : Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Ha !
Ha ! Sigh , then I actually read the post... so,Ha ! Ha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, my first thought was:Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha!
Ha! Sigh, then I actually read the post... so,Ha! Ha!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30184446</id>
	<title>Re:Same concept between the modded xboxes and this</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1258820700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Question, could users of jailbroken iPhones <i>refuse</i> to install the update?  If so, then another question.<br>
<br>
Why is it I always see people berating those who whine about having an unusable computer when they've just dived right in and updated to the latest version of $LINUX\_DISTRO <i>without bothering to check if any custom changes may break things</i> (and indeed, even on the Windows side people going "so you just installed Windows and then the Service Pack that just came out yesterday and are wondering why your computer isn't usable?  Idiot, you never install a Windows Service Pack right away"), but if someone does it on an iPhone, it's suddenly Apple's fault?  Again, ignore this question if the iPhone update happened automatically and without warning on jailbroken iPhones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Question , could users of jailbroken iPhones refuse to install the update ?
If so , then another question .
Why is it I always see people berating those who whine about having an unusable computer when they 've just dived right in and updated to the latest version of $ LINUX \ _DISTRO without bothering to check if any custom changes may break things ( and indeed , even on the Windows side people going " so you just installed Windows and then the Service Pack that just came out yesterday and are wondering why your computer is n't usable ?
Idiot , you never install a Windows Service Pack right away " ) , but if someone does it on an iPhone , it 's suddenly Apple 's fault ?
Again , ignore this question if the iPhone update happened automatically and without warning on jailbroken iPhones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question, could users of jailbroken iPhones refuse to install the update?
If so, then another question.
Why is it I always see people berating those who whine about having an unusable computer when they've just dived right in and updated to the latest version of $LINUX\_DISTRO without bothering to check if any custom changes may break things (and indeed, even on the Windows side people going "so you just installed Windows and then the Service Pack that just came out yesterday and are wondering why your computer isn't usable?
Idiot, you never install a Windows Service Pack right away"), but if someone does it on an iPhone, it's suddenly Apple's fault?
Again, ignore this question if the iPhone update happened automatically and without warning on jailbroken iPhones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30212212</id>
	<title>Re:And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>CleverBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1259068860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think its very true that the iPhone was ONLY unique in that it was popular when it comes to issues like this.  That's why I think the whole notion of suing them for source code is STUPID.  Absolutely brain dead.

</p><p>Moreover, I never understood the compulsion people had to SCREW-UP their firmware, and then cross their fingers that something they did wouldn't "brick" their phones if they tried a vanilla upgrade.  Schiller even said at the time... hey, we can't test for conditions we don't support.  If you go changing the software on the device, and when it gets upgraded... bad things happen... we're not responsible.  In fact, if we see you've altered the device firmware, we can't even offer you support, and we'll likely blacklist your serial number if we see you in the store.

</p><p>This type of crippling problem is only made more problematic due to the nature of baseband firmware, etc.  Critics say Apple should go out of its way to install jailbreaks and unlocks, and do complete restores of the baseband firmware, etc.  It's possible they do now, but when this first start?  Come on.  Mac users have had similar problems using "hacks" to the Mac OS and then trying to upgrade and having their computer go bonkers.  We then have the easier option of booting on CD and reinstalling the OS.  On the iPhone... not really that simple once you've started editing things you shouldn't be editing.

</p><p>I will be amused to see how "rooting" on the Android and "jailbreaking" on the Palm Web OS will be like over time.  It looks like Palm is so forlorn, they may not want to upset any apple carts by tightening their security (closing exploits) over time as Apple has done... or at least, don't have the resources to do much in that arena (they've seemingly even given up iTunes sync). At the end of the day, iPhone jailbreakers have managed to expose thousands of iPhone owners (not schooled in the ways of geekdom) to the platform's first Worm (focusing as many do on "features" and not security precautions).  This is the same level of responsibility Android Market entrusts with its users by giving customers the option to vote yay or nay to "almost" any API request (as if the average consumer won't just brush past these notices).

</p><p>Ultimately, I think people who color outside the lines for a platform like the iPhone will suffer for it, and it will be more about Murphy's Law or Karma, than something you can readily blame Apple for. I'm sure Apple has been sued for negligence on security far more often at this point... but those stories aren't as sexy.  Actually, I guess they are... we just saw that "game stole my data" suit recently. Same thing Apple accused Google Voice of doing ironically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think its very true that the iPhone was ONLY unique in that it was popular when it comes to issues like this .
That 's why I think the whole notion of suing them for source code is STUPID .
Absolutely brain dead .
Moreover , I never understood the compulsion people had to SCREW-UP their firmware , and then cross their fingers that something they did would n't " brick " their phones if they tried a vanilla upgrade .
Schiller even said at the time... hey , we ca n't test for conditions we do n't support .
If you go changing the software on the device , and when it gets upgraded... bad things happen... we 're not responsible .
In fact , if we see you 've altered the device firmware , we ca n't even offer you support , and we 'll likely blacklist your serial number if we see you in the store .
This type of crippling problem is only made more problematic due to the nature of baseband firmware , etc .
Critics say Apple should go out of its way to install jailbreaks and unlocks , and do complete restores of the baseband firmware , etc .
It 's possible they do now , but when this first start ?
Come on .
Mac users have had similar problems using " hacks " to the Mac OS and then trying to upgrade and having their computer go bonkers .
We then have the easier option of booting on CD and reinstalling the OS .
On the iPhone... not really that simple once you 've started editing things you should n't be editing .
I will be amused to see how " rooting " on the Android and " jailbreaking " on the Palm Web OS will be like over time .
It looks like Palm is so forlorn , they may not want to upset any apple carts by tightening their security ( closing exploits ) over time as Apple has done... or at least , do n't have the resources to do much in that arena ( they 've seemingly even given up iTunes sync ) .
At the end of the day , iPhone jailbreakers have managed to expose thousands of iPhone owners ( not schooled in the ways of geekdom ) to the platform 's first Worm ( focusing as many do on " features " and not security precautions ) .
This is the same level of responsibility Android Market entrusts with its users by giving customers the option to vote yay or nay to " almost " any API request ( as if the average consumer wo n't just brush past these notices ) .
Ultimately , I think people who color outside the lines for a platform like the iPhone will suffer for it , and it will be more about Murphy 's Law or Karma , than something you can readily blame Apple for .
I 'm sure Apple has been sued for negligence on security far more often at this point... but those stories are n't as sexy .
Actually , I guess they are... we just saw that " game stole my data " suit recently .
Same thing Apple accused Google Voice of doing ironically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think its very true that the iPhone was ONLY unique in that it was popular when it comes to issues like this.
That's why I think the whole notion of suing them for source code is STUPID.
Absolutely brain dead.
Moreover, I never understood the compulsion people had to SCREW-UP their firmware, and then cross their fingers that something they did wouldn't "brick" their phones if they tried a vanilla upgrade.
Schiller even said at the time... hey, we can't test for conditions we don't support.
If you go changing the software on the device, and when it gets upgraded... bad things happen... we're not responsible.
In fact, if we see you've altered the device firmware, we can't even offer you support, and we'll likely blacklist your serial number if we see you in the store.
This type of crippling problem is only made more problematic due to the nature of baseband firmware, etc.
Critics say Apple should go out of its way to install jailbreaks and unlocks, and do complete restores of the baseband firmware, etc.
It's possible they do now, but when this first start?
Come on.
Mac users have had similar problems using "hacks" to the Mac OS and then trying to upgrade and having their computer go bonkers.
We then have the easier option of booting on CD and reinstalling the OS.
On the iPhone... not really that simple once you've started editing things you shouldn't be editing.
I will be amused to see how "rooting" on the Android and "jailbreaking" on the Palm Web OS will be like over time.
It looks like Palm is so forlorn, they may not want to upset any apple carts by tightening their security (closing exploits) over time as Apple has done... or at least, don't have the resources to do much in that arena (they've seemingly even given up iTunes sync).
At the end of the day, iPhone jailbreakers have managed to expose thousands of iPhone owners (not schooled in the ways of geekdom) to the platform's first Worm (focusing as many do on "features" and not security precautions).
This is the same level of responsibility Android Market entrusts with its users by giving customers the option to vote yay or nay to "almost" any API request (as if the average consumer won't just brush past these notices).
Ultimately, I think people who color outside the lines for a platform like the iPhone will suffer for it, and it will be more about Murphy's Law or Karma, than something you can readily blame Apple for.
I'm sure Apple has been sued for negligence on security far more often at this point... but those stories aren't as sexy.
Actually, I guess they are... we just saw that "game stole my data" suit recently.
Same thing Apple accused Google Voice of doing ironically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178502</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1258715880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless, if Apple and AT&amp;T are guilty of anti-trust law violations, it only seems appropriate that their products are what expose them.</p><p>Did it ever occur to you that the EULA could have been DESIGNED to obscure such violations?</p><p>EULAs are bullshit. Corporations use them to deny customers LEGAL rights, intentionally complicate them with endless legalese, obfuscate their own questionable actions, and very often, use them as a place to bury shit that they simply do not want the customer to know yet are compelled by LAW to disclose.</p><p>And, yeah, people need to learn to read them before hitting the "accept" button. I am fully convinced that if everyone did, about 50\% of the EULAs out there would NOT be accepted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless , if Apple and AT&amp;T are guilty of anti-trust law violations , it only seems appropriate that their products are what expose them.Did it ever occur to you that the EULA could have been DESIGNED to obscure such violations ? EULAs are bullshit .
Corporations use them to deny customers LEGAL rights , intentionally complicate them with endless legalese , obfuscate their own questionable actions , and very often , use them as a place to bury shit that they simply do not want the customer to know yet are compelled by LAW to disclose.And , yeah , people need to learn to read them before hitting the " accept " button .
I am fully convinced that if everyone did , about 50 \ % of the EULAs out there would NOT be accepted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless, if Apple and AT&amp;T are guilty of anti-trust law violations, it only seems appropriate that their products are what expose them.Did it ever occur to you that the EULA could have been DESIGNED to obscure such violations?EULAs are bullshit.
Corporations use them to deny customers LEGAL rights, intentionally complicate them with endless legalese, obfuscate their own questionable actions, and very often, use them as a place to bury shit that they simply do not want the customer to know yet are compelled by LAW to disclose.And, yeah, people need to learn to read them before hitting the "accept" button.
I am fully convinced that if everyone did, about 50\% of the EULAs out there would NOT be accepted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1258717920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is leaving bear traps next to each window legally actionable? It isn't legally actionable if no burglar ever breaks into your house, so why should it be when a burgler does? It's not like you're actively hurting the burglar. If you have a gun in your house and the burglar takes the gun and then shoots himself with it, are you suddenly legally actionable? The burglar could have asked you to remove the bear traps, so it's not like he didn't have any options (yes, obviously the option would have ruined his purpose for being there, but that's not the issue).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is leaving bear traps next to each window legally actionable ?
It is n't legally actionable if no burglar ever breaks into your house , so why should it be when a burgler does ?
It 's not like you 're actively hurting the burglar .
If you have a gun in your house and the burglar takes the gun and then shoots himself with it , are you suddenly legally actionable ?
The burglar could have asked you to remove the bear traps , so it 's not like he did n't have any options ( yes , obviously the option would have ruined his purpose for being there , but that 's not the issue ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is leaving bear traps next to each window legally actionable?
It isn't legally actionable if no burglar ever breaks into your house, so why should it be when a burgler does?
It's not like you're actively hurting the burglar.
If you have a gun in your house and the burglar takes the gun and then shoots himself with it, are you suddenly legally actionable?
The burglar could have asked you to remove the bear traps, so it's not like he didn't have any options (yes, obviously the option would have ruined his purpose for being there, but that's not the issue).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179372</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's even worse: If you have a gun in your house and you post a sign that reads: "If you are a burglar, here is where you can find an (unloaded) gun in my house, and, since you are a burglar, it would help me out if you would load the gun and shoot yourself in the head". Then the burglar goes off and finds the gun, loads it with a bullet and shoots himself in the head. Would that be legally actionable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's even worse : If you have a gun in your house and you post a sign that reads : " If you are a burglar , here is where you can find an ( unloaded ) gun in my house , and , since you are a burglar , it would help me out if you would load the gun and shoot yourself in the head " .
Then the burglar goes off and finds the gun , loads it with a bullet and shoots himself in the head .
Would that be legally actionable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's even worse: If you have a gun in your house and you post a sign that reads: "If you are a burglar, here is where you can find an (unloaded) gun in my house, and, since you are a burglar, it would help me out if you would load the gun and shoot yourself in the head".
Then the burglar goes off and finds the gun, loads it with a bullet and shoots himself in the head.
Would that be legally actionable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180138</id>
	<title>Re:And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258723500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and I demand to be the king of all Londinum and wear a shiny hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and I demand to be the king of all Londinum and wear a shiny hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and I demand to be the king of all Londinum and wear a shiny hat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180582</id>
	<title>Re:And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258726020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it is not legally still their hardware. There is this magical legal doctrine, called first sale. Once you purchase the hardware, you own the hardware. Breaking a contract is not illegal insofar as you are willing to pay the damages provided for in that contract (this would likely be the early termination fee).</p><p>You own the phone, they own the service. You don't need to keep both. When you drop your contract with AT&amp;T, they do not get to show up and demand your phone. You keep it, you pay your termination fee, and you both go on your merry way.</p><p>Contract terms do not change the law, they create a private agreement enforceable only between two parties. AT&amp;T has the right to boot people off of their network, but to mess with the phones that these people own under the law.</p><p>By intentionally "bricking" the phones, then Apple or AT&amp;T may have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and may also have committed conversion (the fancy term for theft or destruction of another persons property).</p><p>IANAL But I play one on TV.<br>YMMV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is not legally still their hardware .
There is this magical legal doctrine , called first sale .
Once you purchase the hardware , you own the hardware .
Breaking a contract is not illegal insofar as you are willing to pay the damages provided for in that contract ( this would likely be the early termination fee ) .You own the phone , they own the service .
You do n't need to keep both .
When you drop your contract with AT&amp;T , they do not get to show up and demand your phone .
You keep it , you pay your termination fee , and you both go on your merry way.Contract terms do not change the law , they create a private agreement enforceable only between two parties .
AT&amp;T has the right to boot people off of their network , but to mess with the phones that these people own under the law.By intentionally " bricking " the phones , then Apple or AT&amp;T may have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and may also have committed conversion ( the fancy term for theft or destruction of another persons property ) .IANAL But I play one on TV.YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it is not legally still their hardware.
There is this magical legal doctrine, called first sale.
Once you purchase the hardware, you own the hardware.
Breaking a contract is not illegal insofar as you are willing to pay the damages provided for in that contract (this would likely be the early termination fee).You own the phone, they own the service.
You don't need to keep both.
When you drop your contract with AT&amp;T, they do not get to show up and demand your phone.
You keep it, you pay your termination fee, and you both go on your merry way.Contract terms do not change the law, they create a private agreement enforceable only between two parties.
AT&amp;T has the right to boot people off of their network, but to mess with the phones that these people own under the law.By intentionally "bricking" the phones, then Apple or AT&amp;T may have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and may also have committed conversion (the fancy term for theft or destruction of another persons property).IANAL But I play one on TV.YMMV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180190</id>
	<title>Mantrapping is illegal</title>
	<author>Okian Warrior</author>
	<datestamp>1258723740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, the lawyers reading this can correct me as needed.</p><p>If the burglar gets hurt due to a trap you have set, it's a crime not a tort. The burglar is not suing you, the police are arresting you on evidence of setting a trap. The crime is "Reckless Endangerment" if no one is hurt, various others if someone *is* hurt.</p><p>Traps are illegal because lots of people can be in your home without your consent: firefighters, police chasing a suspect, gas line repairmen,and the super. You must keep your house reasonably safe for that reason. It's a bit of a grey area if the burglar trips over a rug and breaks his leg, depending on the circumstances.</p><p>The burglar can sue for damages because we have the presumption of innocence. At the time of the break-in, he had not been convicted of the crime. The "deadly force" argument may or may not be valid, since the trap may very well be non-lethal, like restraining the burglar with a net.</p><p>I believe that this last bit varies from state-to-state, so check your local laws.</p><p><a href="http://gothamist.com/2008/04/06/homemade\_booby.php" title="gothamist.com">Interesting link</a> [gothamist.com]</p><p>For those posters who talk about putting up signs, note that the trespasser could be a small child who hasn't yet learned to read, or am adult who only reads a different language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , the lawyers reading this can correct me as needed.If the burglar gets hurt due to a trap you have set , it 's a crime not a tort .
The burglar is not suing you , the police are arresting you on evidence of setting a trap .
The crime is " Reckless Endangerment " if no one is hurt , various others if someone * is * hurt.Traps are illegal because lots of people can be in your home without your consent : firefighters , police chasing a suspect , gas line repairmen,and the super .
You must keep your house reasonably safe for that reason .
It 's a bit of a grey area if the burglar trips over a rug and breaks his leg , depending on the circumstances.The burglar can sue for damages because we have the presumption of innocence .
At the time of the break-in , he had not been convicted of the crime .
The " deadly force " argument may or may not be valid , since the trap may very well be non-lethal , like restraining the burglar with a net.I believe that this last bit varies from state-to-state , so check your local laws.Interesting link [ gothamist.com ] For those posters who talk about putting up signs , note that the trespasser could be a small child who has n't yet learned to read , or am adult who only reads a different language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, the lawyers reading this can correct me as needed.If the burglar gets hurt due to a trap you have set, it's a crime not a tort.
The burglar is not suing you, the police are arresting you on evidence of setting a trap.
The crime is "Reckless Endangerment" if no one is hurt, various others if someone *is* hurt.Traps are illegal because lots of people can be in your home without your consent: firefighters, police chasing a suspect, gas line repairmen,and the super.
You must keep your house reasonably safe for that reason.
It's a bit of a grey area if the burglar trips over a rug and breaks his leg, depending on the circumstances.The burglar can sue for damages because we have the presumption of innocence.
At the time of the break-in, he had not been convicted of the crime.
The "deadly force" argument may or may not be valid, since the trap may very well be non-lethal, like restraining the burglar with a net.I believe that this last bit varies from state-to-state, so check your local laws.Interesting link [gothamist.com]For those posters who talk about putting up signs, note that the trespasser could be a small child who hasn't yet learned to read, or am adult who only reads a different language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179138</id>
	<title>Re:And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1258718520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now,</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Oh, yes, that's why I have been able to take phones on my family plan and put another carrier's SIM card in them and have them work. Yes, really locked down. The phones were locked when I bought them, but the carrier gave me the code to unlock them at no charge to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now , Oh , yes , that 's why I have been able to take phones on my family plan and put another carrier 's SIM card in them and have them work .
Yes , really locked down .
The phones were locked when I bought them , but the carrier gave me the code to unlock them at no charge to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, 

Oh, yes, that's why I have been able to take phones on my family plan and put another carrier's SIM card in them and have them work.
Yes, really locked down.
The phones were locked when I bought them, but the carrier gave me the code to unlock them at no charge to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179254</id>
	<title>Re:Same concept between the modded xboxes and this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258719180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do I sense a tad of jealousy?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
P.S. Posting this from my new shiny <a href="http://www.apple.com/macpro/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">Mac Pro</a> [apple.com].
</p><p>blah;npghnyyl;w/x</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I sense a tad of jealousy ?
: ) P.S .
Posting this from my new shiny Mac Pro [ apple.com ] .
blah ; npghnyyl ; w/x</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I sense a tad of jealousy?
:)
P.S.
Posting this from my new shiny Mac Pro [apple.com].
blah;npghnyyl;w/x</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178094</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>PmanAce</author>
	<datestamp>1258714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good.luck.with.that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good.luck.with.that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good.luck.with.that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179784</id>
	<title>Re:And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>MeNeXT</author>
	<datestamp>1258721640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple &amp; AT&amp;T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.</p></div><p>No it's not. It was sold. So it is NOT their hardware. How hard is this to understand. If you do not wish to sell the hardware make sure that you specify that it is NOT sold, so the consumer is not under the impression that he bought it!!!!!</p><p>I want my cookie now....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple &amp; AT&amp;T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.No it 's not .
It was sold .
So it is NOT their hardware .
How hard is this to understand .
If you do not wish to sell the hardware make sure that you specify that it is NOT sold , so the consumer is not under the impression that he bought it ! ! ! !
! I want my cookie now... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple &amp; AT&amp;T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.No it's not.
It was sold.
So it is NOT their hardware.
How hard is this to understand.
If you do not wish to sell the hardware make sure that you specify that it is NOT sold, so the consumer is not under the impression that he bought it!!!!
!I want my cookie now....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30182390</id>
	<title>and we may just get it</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1258744980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now,</i></p><p>That doesn't make it right.  In fact, in many countries, what Apple is doing with the iPhone is illegal and Apple must sell them without a contract, or unlocked with a contract.</p><p><i>I'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple &amp; AT&amp;T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.</i></p><p>Legally?  Are you kidding?  You paid for the phone, it's yours.  Yes, even with a contract, because if you break the contract (or the phone), you have to pay the difference.  It's your phone.</p><p><i>the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care</i></p><p>And that seems like the perfect opportunity to get something changed in the US phone market, because the US cell phone market is extremely inefficient and overpriced.  And Apple, far from changing this, has been perpetuating the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now,That does n't make it right .
In fact , in many countries , what Apple is doing with the iPhone is illegal and Apple must sell them without a contract , or unlocked with a contract.I 'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple &amp; AT&amp;T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.Legally ?
Are you kidding ?
You paid for the phone , it 's yours .
Yes , even with a contract , because if you break the contract ( or the phone ) , you have to pay the difference .
It 's your phone.the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually careAnd that seems like the perfect opportunity to get something changed in the US phone market , because the US cell phone market is extremely inefficient and overpriced .
And Apple , far from changing this , has been perpetuating the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now,That doesn't make it right.
In fact, in many countries, what Apple is doing with the iPhone is illegal and Apple must sell them without a contract, or unlocked with a contract.I'll bet a cookie that the terms of the service agreement let Apple &amp; AT&amp;T do more or less what ever they want with what is legally still their hardware.Legally?
Are you kidding?
You paid for the phone, it's yours.
Yes, even with a contract, because if you break the contract (or the phone), you have to pay the difference.
It's your phone.the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually careAnd that seems like the perfect opportunity to get something changed in the US phone market, because the US cell phone market is extremely inefficient and overpriced.
And Apple, far from changing this, has been perpetuating the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180072</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258723020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your analogy is inconsistent.  You should be asking if it would be legally actionable if you set booby traps that shoot burglars with gun when they enter your window.  A reasonable person (reasonable man) would not expect to be shot by a robotic weapon when he enters your window uninvited or otherwise.  Therefore, you have created a situation that is dangerous for anyone with reasonable expectations.  It is the same as if you had put butter on your front steps to watch the mail man slip and fall.  It really is no different.  The intention of the person entering your home makes no difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analogy is inconsistent .
You should be asking if it would be legally actionable if you set booby traps that shoot burglars with gun when they enter your window .
A reasonable person ( reasonable man ) would not expect to be shot by a robotic weapon when he enters your window uninvited or otherwise .
Therefore , you have created a situation that is dangerous for anyone with reasonable expectations .
It is the same as if you had put butter on your front steps to watch the mail man slip and fall .
It really is no different .
The intention of the person entering your home makes no difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analogy is inconsistent.
You should be asking if it would be legally actionable if you set booby traps that shoot burglars with gun when they enter your window.
A reasonable person (reasonable man) would not expect to be shot by a robotic weapon when he enters your window uninvited or otherwise.
Therefore, you have created a situation that is dangerous for anyone with reasonable expectations.
It is the same as if you had put butter on your front steps to watch the mail man slip and fall.
It really is no different.
The intention of the person entering your home makes no difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179244</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258719120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The argument is that the use of deadly force is not allowed if the burglar isn't an immediate threat to the life of someone; and if you can't use deadly force yourself when they enter, you cannot do it through a mechanical device, either.  See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko\_v.\_Briney" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko\_v.\_Briney</a> [wikipedia.org] (The legal briefs linked on the bottom will probably be more useful). Obviously this ruling is by-state, and I have no idea about non-US countries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument is that the use of deadly force is not allowed if the burglar is n't an immediate threat to the life of someone ; and if you ca n't use deadly force yourself when they enter , you can not do it through a mechanical device , either .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko \ _v. \ _Briney [ wikipedia.org ] ( The legal briefs linked on the bottom will probably be more useful ) .
Obviously this ruling is by-state , and I have no idea about non-US countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument is that the use of deadly force is not allowed if the burglar isn't an immediate threat to the life of someone; and if you can't use deadly force yourself when they enter, you cannot do it through a mechanical device, either.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko\_v.\_Briney [wikipedia.org] (The legal briefs linked on the bottom will probably be more useful).
Obviously this ruling is by-state, and I have no idea about non-US countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178882</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1258717440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Corporations use them to deny customers LEGAL rights</p></div><p>Name some?  (not a troll, I'm curious... and stupid or ignorant and can't think of any off the top of my head)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations use them to deny customers LEGAL rightsName some ?
( not a troll , I 'm curious... and stupid or ignorant and ca n't think of any off the top of my head )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations use them to deny customers LEGAL rightsName some?
(not a troll, I'm curious... and stupid or ignorant and can't think of any off the top of my head)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180002</id>
	<title>Mantrapping is illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258722720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, the lawyers reading this can correct me as needed.</p><p>If the burglar gets hurt due to a trap you have set, it's a crime not a tort. The burglar is not suing you, the police are arresting you on evidence of setting a trap. The crime is "Reckless Endangerment" if no one is hurt, various others if someone *is* hurt.</p><p>Traps are illegal because lots of people can be in your home without your consent: firefighters, police chasing a suspect, gas line repairmen,and the super. You must keep your house reasonably safe for that reason. It's a bit of a grey area if the burglar trips over a rug and breaks his leg, depending on the circumstances.</p><p>The burglar can sue for damages because we have the presumption of innocence. At the time of the break-in, he had not been convicted of the crime. I believe that this varies from state-to-state, so check your local laws.</p><p><a href="http://gothamist.com/2008/04/06/homemade\_booby.php" title="gothamist.com" rel="nofollow">Interesting link</a> [gothamist.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , the lawyers reading this can correct me as needed.If the burglar gets hurt due to a trap you have set , it 's a crime not a tort .
The burglar is not suing you , the police are arresting you on evidence of setting a trap .
The crime is " Reckless Endangerment " if no one is hurt , various others if someone * is * hurt.Traps are illegal because lots of people can be in your home without your consent : firefighters , police chasing a suspect , gas line repairmen,and the super .
You must keep your house reasonably safe for that reason .
It 's a bit of a grey area if the burglar trips over a rug and breaks his leg , depending on the circumstances.The burglar can sue for damages because we have the presumption of innocence .
At the time of the break-in , he had not been convicted of the crime .
I believe that this varies from state-to-state , so check your local laws.Interesting link [ gothamist.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, the lawyers reading this can correct me as needed.If the burglar gets hurt due to a trap you have set, it's a crime not a tort.
The burglar is not suing you, the police are arresting you on evidence of setting a trap.
The crime is "Reckless Endangerment" if no one is hurt, various others if someone *is* hurt.Traps are illegal because lots of people can be in your home without your consent: firefighters, police chasing a suspect, gas line repairmen,and the super.
You must keep your house reasonably safe for that reason.
It's a bit of a grey area if the burglar trips over a rug and breaks his leg, depending on the circumstances.The burglar can sue for damages because we have the presumption of innocence.
At the time of the break-in, he had not been convicted of the crime.
I believe that this varies from state-to-state, so check your local laws.Interesting link [gothamist.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180252</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1258724040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why is leaving bear traps next to each window legally actionable?</p><p>Its not.</p><p>Injuring someone with bear traps left next to the window, OTOH, usually is.</p><blockquote><div><p>It isn't legally actionable if no burglar ever breaks into your house, so why should it be when a burgler does?</p></div></blockquote><p>Its also probably not legally actionable most places if I swing a baseball bat in the middle of a public park with my eyes closed -- if no one happens to be walking through the path of the swing when I do it. OTOH, if someone walks through the path of the swing, it will suddenly become very much actionable. Often, what makes something actionable (whether criminally or civilly) isn't just an act, but the injury resulting from the act.</p><blockquote><div><p>It's not like you're actively hurting the burglar.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, actually, its exactly like that. Now, if someone else put the bear traps there without your knowledge, and when you discovered them yourself you simply failed to remove them, you might have a point. But that's a pretty weird hypothetical.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is leaving bear traps next to each window legally actionable ? Its not.Injuring someone with bear traps left next to the window , OTOH , usually is.It is n't legally actionable if no burglar ever breaks into your house , so why should it be when a burgler does ? Its also probably not legally actionable most places if I swing a baseball bat in the middle of a public park with my eyes closed -- if no one happens to be walking through the path of the swing when I do it .
OTOH , if someone walks through the path of the swing , it will suddenly become very much actionable .
Often , what makes something actionable ( whether criminally or civilly ) is n't just an act , but the injury resulting from the act.It 's not like you 're actively hurting the burglar.Yes , actually , its exactly like that .
Now , if someone else put the bear traps there without your knowledge , and when you discovered them yourself you simply failed to remove them , you might have a point .
But that 's a pretty weird hypothetical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is leaving bear traps next to each window legally actionable?Its not.Injuring someone with bear traps left next to the window, OTOH, usually is.It isn't legally actionable if no burglar ever breaks into your house, so why should it be when a burgler does?Its also probably not legally actionable most places if I swing a baseball bat in the middle of a public park with my eyes closed -- if no one happens to be walking through the path of the swing when I do it.
OTOH, if someone walks through the path of the swing, it will suddenly become very much actionable.
Often, what makes something actionable (whether criminally or civilly) isn't just an act, but the injury resulting from the act.It's not like you're actively hurting the burglar.Yes, actually, its exactly like that.
Now, if someone else put the bear traps there without your knowledge, and when you discovered them yourself you simply failed to remove them, you might have a point.
But that's a pretty weird hypothetical.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178092</id>
	<title>looks like 2010</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1258714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>may not be a good year for AT&amp;T.</htmltext>
<tokenext>may not be a good year for AT&amp;T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>may not be a good year for AT&amp;T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180878</id>
	<title>Re:And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1258728180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So long as we're demanding things we're not going to get, go for broke I say.</p><p>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it.</p> </div><p>Odd, i have had a choice for some time now what carrier i have for my hardwired phone.   Sure, in the old days it was limited, but its not anymore, so why should the iPhone be?</p><p>All cell phones should be unlocked and transportable to ANY provider by default, like most everything else on the planet is. ( except cable, which also needs to be dealt with, but that is a different discussion )</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So long as we 're demanding things we 're not going to get , go for broke I say.Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now , the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it .
Odd , i have had a choice for some time now what carrier i have for my hardwired phone .
Sure , in the old days it was limited , but its not anymore , so why should the iPhone be ? All cell phones should be unlocked and transportable to ANY provider by default , like most everything else on the planet is .
( except cable , which also needs to be dealt with , but that is a different discussion )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long as we're demanding things we're not going to get, go for broke I say.Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it.
Odd, i have had a choice for some time now what carrier i have for my hardwired phone.
Sure, in the old days it was limited, but its not anymore, so why should the iPhone be?All cell phones should be unlocked and transportable to ANY provider by default, like most everything else on the planet is.
( except cable, which also needs to be dealt with, but that is a different discussion )
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180510</id>
	<title>Re:Lawsuits are really getting asinine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258725600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a problem because of if you had a fire in your house and firefighters got injured, or if the cops or paramedics had to break into your house to rescue someone who had collapsed, etc. You can't just set potentially fatal booby traps in your own house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a problem because of if you had a fire in your house and firefighters got injured , or if the cops or paramedics had to break into your house to rescue someone who had collapsed , etc .
You ca n't just set potentially fatal booby traps in your own house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a problem because of if you had a fire in your house and firefighters got injured, or if the cops or paramedics had to break into your house to rescue someone who had collapsed, etc.
You can't just set potentially fatal booby traps in your own house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178684</id>
	<title>Re:Same concept between the modded xboxes and this</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1258716540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(P.S.: Posting this from my new iMac).</p></div><p>Smug son of a bitch...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( P.S .
: Posting this from my new iMac ) .Smug son of a bitch.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(P.S.
: Posting this from my new iMac).Smug son of a bitch...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178122</id>
	<title>Same concept between the modded xboxes and this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258714560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder which side of the battle the general comments are going to take on this story vs the xbox banning story.</p><p>On one side (Xbox):  Kick rocks, you modded, MS gimped your console.</p><p>I suspect for this article:  Apple gimped your phone, die die die.</p><p>(P.S.: Posting this from my new iMac).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder which side of the battle the general comments are going to take on this story vs the xbox banning story.On one side ( Xbox ) : Kick rocks , you modded , MS gimped your console.I suspect for this article : Apple gimped your phone , die die die. ( P.S .
: Posting this from my new iMac ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder which side of the battle the general comments are going to take on this story vs the xbox banning story.On one side (Xbox):  Kick rocks, you modded, MS gimped your console.I suspect for this article:  Apple gimped your phone, die die die.(P.S.
: Posting this from my new iMac).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178062</id>
	<title>First brick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258714320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First brick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First brick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First brick</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179144</id>
	<title>Re:And I demand a pony and some ice cream!</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1258718580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>
Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it.</em> </p><p>
Just because phones have been wired to contracts for years, doesn't mean it was ever legal, or that it failed to be illegal product tying.
</p><p>
It may very well be that it wasn't an issue until now, or  there wasn't enough outrage or damage to actually bring the matter to the courts.
</p><p>
The iPhone is certainly a very unique product compared to most phones.
</p><p>
Also, even in the past when phones were tied to a contract, it was possible to unlock them and use the phones with other service, without arbitrary restrictions imposed by the manufacturer.
</p><p>
And certainly the manufacturer did not come back and set out to brick unlocked devices in a new sw update.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now , the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it .
Just because phones have been wired to contracts for years , does n't mean it was ever legal , or that it failed to be illegal product tying .
It may very well be that it was n't an issue until now , or there was n't enough outrage or damage to actually bring the matter to the courts .
The iPhone is certainly a very unique product compared to most phones .
Also , even in the past when phones were tied to a contract , it was possible to unlock them and use the phones with other service , without arbitrary restrictions imposed by the manufacturer .
And certainly the manufacturer did not come back and set out to brick unlocked devices in a new sw update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Phones have been hard wired to contracts for years now, the iPhone is only unique in that its popular so people actually care that only one service provider can support it.
Just because phones have been wired to contracts for years, doesn't mean it was ever legal, or that it failed to be illegal product tying.
It may very well be that it wasn't an issue until now, or  there wasn't enough outrage or damage to actually bring the matter to the courts.
The iPhone is certainly a very unique product compared to most phones.
Also, even in the past when phones were tied to a contract, it was possible to unlock them and use the phones with other service, without arbitrary restrictions imposed by the manufacturer.
And certainly the manufacturer did not come back and set out to brick unlocked devices in a new sw update.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30184446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30181066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30187296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30181982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30181822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30212212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30182390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_2022250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2022250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2022250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30181982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30212212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30181066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30182390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2022250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2022250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179014
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179244
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180072
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180190
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180252
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30180510
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178924
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179538
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30181822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_2022250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30187296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30184446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30178684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_2022250.30179254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
