<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_26_1728243</id>
	<title>Apple Asks Judge To Shutter Psystar's Clone Unit</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1259258520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Apple wants a federal judge to <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141458/Apple\_asks\_judge\_to\_shutter\_Psystar\_s\_clone\_business">shut down Psystar's Mac clone operation</a> and order the company to pay more than $2.1 million in damages, according to court documents. The move was the first by Apple since US District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that Psystar <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/11/14/1954259/Psystar-Crushed-In-Court">violated Apple's copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act</a> when it installed Mac OS X on clones it sold. Alsup's Nov. 13 order, which granted Apple's motion for summary judgment and quashed Psystar's similar request, was a crushing blow to the Florida company's legal campaign. In a motion filed Monday, Apple asked Alsup to grant a permanent injunction that would force Psystar to stop selling any computer bundled with Mac OS X; using, selling or even owning software that lets it crack Apple's OS encryption key to trick Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware; and 'inducing, aiding or inducing others in infringing Apple's copyright.'"</i>
Groklaw has <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091124092210278">summarized Apple's request</a> as well, and noted that Apple has also filed a motion to <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009112603405262">dismiss Psystar's litigation in Florida</a> (or transfer it to California, where the above injunction was filed).</htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Apple wants a federal judge to shut down Psystar 's Mac clone operation and order the company to pay more than $ 2.1 million in damages , according to court documents .
The move was the first by Apple since US District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that Psystar violated Apple 's copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when it installed Mac OS X on clones it sold .
Alsup 's Nov. 13 order , which granted Apple 's motion for summary judgment and quashed Psystar 's similar request , was a crushing blow to the Florida company 's legal campaign .
In a motion filed Monday , Apple asked Alsup to grant a permanent injunction that would force Psystar to stop selling any computer bundled with Mac OS X ; using , selling or even owning software that lets it crack Apple 's OS encryption key to trick Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware ; and 'inducing , aiding or inducing others in infringing Apple 's copyright .
' " Groklaw has summarized Apple 's request as well , and noted that Apple has also filed a motion to dismiss Psystar 's litigation in Florida ( or transfer it to California , where the above injunction was filed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Apple wants a federal judge to shut down Psystar's Mac clone operation and order the company to pay more than $2.1 million in damages, according to court documents.
The move was the first by Apple since US District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that Psystar violated Apple's copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when it installed Mac OS X on clones it sold.
Alsup's Nov. 13 order, which granted Apple's motion for summary judgment and quashed Psystar's similar request, was a crushing blow to the Florida company's legal campaign.
In a motion filed Monday, Apple asked Alsup to grant a permanent injunction that would force Psystar to stop selling any computer bundled with Mac OS X; using, selling or even owning software that lets it crack Apple's OS encryption key to trick Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware; and 'inducing, aiding or inducing others in infringing Apple's copyright.
'"
Groklaw has summarized Apple's request as well, and noted that Apple has also filed a motion to dismiss Psystar's litigation in Florida (or transfer it to California, where the above injunction was filed).</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239406</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is very special</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1259227620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If OS X didn't try to screw you on purchasing every software you need, and was faster, it would get used, but I don't like the OS anymore. It's not UNIX either, but a bastard from the netherworlds posing as something great<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</i>
<br>
<br>
See, OS X is the one reason I want to buy a mac right now (trying to convince myself the 27 inch imac is not hideously overpriced, but I am not doing a good job convincing myself.)  Windows is Windows (though W7 seems to be kind of decent)and Linux is ugly and the media capabilities are patchwork to the point of annoyance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If OS X did n't try to screw you on purchasing every software you need , and was faster , it would get used , but I do n't like the OS anymore .
It 's not UNIX either , but a bastard from the netherworlds posing as something great ; - ) See , OS X is the one reason I want to buy a mac right now ( trying to convince myself the 27 inch imac is not hideously overpriced , but I am not doing a good job convincing myself .
) Windows is Windows ( though W7 seems to be kind of decent ) and Linux is ugly and the media capabilities are patchwork to the point of annoyance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If OS X didn't try to screw you on purchasing every software you need, and was faster, it would get used, but I don't like the OS anymore.
It's not UNIX either, but a bastard from the netherworlds posing as something great ;-)


See, OS X is the one reason I want to buy a mac right now (trying to convince myself the 27 inch imac is not hideously overpriced, but I am not doing a good job convincing myself.
)  Windows is Windows (though W7 seems to be kind of decent)and Linux is ugly and the media capabilities are patchwork to the point of annoyance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30242534</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>nhytefall</author>
	<datestamp>1259256120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pet peeve here.  The company's name is "Apple" in the vernacular, not apPle.<br> <br>
I understand that your mis-typing of the company's name is perhaps some attempt at slighting them, and thus demostrating your higher moral position.  However, your misspelling is both juvenile, and gives me a headache.<br> <br>
So, in short, stop.  Thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pet peeve here .
The company 's name is " Apple " in the vernacular , not apPle .
I understand that your mis-typing of the company 's name is perhaps some attempt at slighting them , and thus demostrating your higher moral position .
However , your misspelling is both juvenile , and gives me a headache .
So , in short , stop .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pet peeve here.
The company's name is "Apple" in the vernacular, not apPle.
I understand that your mis-typing of the company's name is perhaps some attempt at slighting them, and thus demostrating your higher moral position.
However, your misspelling is both juvenile, and gives me a headache.
So, in short, stop.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243994</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259318520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple wants everything to stay within their box, and they want to have complete and utter control over that box. As long as Apple isn't trying to control whats outside the box - I don't care, but as I see it, OS X is part of their box.</p></div><p>I have no problem with Apple controlling a box of theirs - but once I buy a Mac, it's <i>my</i> box, and I'll do what I damn well like with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple wants everything to stay within their box , and they want to have complete and utter control over that box .
As long as Apple is n't trying to control whats outside the box - I do n't care , but as I see it , OS X is part of their box.I have no problem with Apple controlling a box of theirs - but once I buy a Mac , it 's my box , and I 'll do what I damn well like with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple wants everything to stay within their box, and they want to have complete and utter control over that box.
As long as Apple isn't trying to control whats outside the box - I don't care, but as I see it, OS X is part of their box.I have no problem with Apple controlling a box of theirs - but once I buy a Mac, it's my box, and I'll do what I damn well like with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238416</id>
	<title>It's ok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259262300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple did it so it can't be bad</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple did it so it ca n't be bad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple did it so it can't be bad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238748</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>AnotherShep</author>
	<datestamp>1259264700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, see the part where the only people they were going after were the people modifying and reselling it without permission?  Didn't think so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , see the part where the only people they were going after were the people modifying and reselling it without permission ?
Did n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, see the part where the only people they were going after were the people modifying and reselling it without permission?
Didn't think so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30244306</id>
	<title>Re:A few reasons</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1259323500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dislike MS, but I loathe Apple. I'll have nothing to do with any service, software, or hardware they provide. My iPod is second hand, so I don't give them ANY money (I use WinAmp to manage the music content on it). I only have an iPod because my car has an iPod compatible USB input and I like the use of playlists, which a USB stick doesn't allow.<br> <br>I use Microsoft operating systems because getting 3D acceleration and reliable sound / wireless networking is too much of a hassle in Linux. I play PC games, so Windows is my OS.<br> <br>If I could get mouse + keyboard input in games on a 360 / PS3, I'd swap and get a netbook.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dislike MS , but I loathe Apple .
I 'll have nothing to do with any service , software , or hardware they provide .
My iPod is second hand , so I do n't give them ANY money ( I use WinAmp to manage the music content on it ) .
I only have an iPod because my car has an iPod compatible USB input and I like the use of playlists , which a USB stick does n't allow .
I use Microsoft operating systems because getting 3D acceleration and reliable sound / wireless networking is too much of a hassle in Linux .
I play PC games , so Windows is my OS .
If I could get mouse + keyboard input in games on a 360 / PS3 , I 'd swap and get a netbook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dislike MS, but I loathe Apple.
I'll have nothing to do with any service, software, or hardware they provide.
My iPod is second hand, so I don't give them ANY money (I use WinAmp to manage the music content on it).
I only have an iPod because my car has an iPod compatible USB input and I like the use of playlists, which a USB stick doesn't allow.
I use Microsoft operating systems because getting 3D acceleration and reliable sound / wireless networking is too much of a hassle in Linux.
I play PC games, so Windows is my OS.
If I could get mouse + keyboard input in games on a 360 / PS3, I'd swap and get a netbook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238784</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>Stuart Gibson</author>
	<datestamp>1259265000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't sign a license agreement saying you won't put the engine in another car. Now, you can argue whether or not license agreements are fair or not and you can work your ass off to get the law changed so that you actually own the software you buy instead of just licensing it (good luck with that), but at the minute the law is on Apple's side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't sign a license agreement saying you wo n't put the engine in another car .
Now , you can argue whether or not license agreements are fair or not and you can work your ass off to get the law changed so that you actually own the software you buy instead of just licensing it ( good luck with that ) , but at the minute the law is on Apple 's side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't sign a license agreement saying you won't put the engine in another car.
Now, you can argue whether or not license agreements are fair or not and you can work your ass off to get the law changed so that you actually own the software you buy instead of just licensing it (good luck with that), but at the minute the law is on Apple's side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30242536</id>
	<title>So was it wrong when Compaq cloned the IBM BIOS?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259256180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pystar also modified as well as mass copied OS X.  When asked Pystar couldn't even provide receipts proving they paid for OS X.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pystar also modified as well as mass copied OS X. When asked Pystar could n't even provide receipts proving they paid for OS X . Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pystar also modified as well as mass copied OS X.  When asked Pystar couldn't even provide receipts proving they paid for OS X.

Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240406</id>
	<title>Simple Solution to this Mess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259236740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a simple solution to this whole Apple/Psystar/M$/Linux mess, embrace communism on a worldwide scale under a one world government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a simple solution to this whole Apple/Psystar/M $ /Linux mess , embrace communism on a worldwide scale under a one world government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a simple solution to this whole Apple/Psystar/M$/Linux mess, embrace communism on a worldwide scale under a one world government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243506</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>cpicon92</author>
	<datestamp>1259312580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>People</b> can do what they want. Companies can't. Apple doesn't sue people for building hackintoshes the same way Microsoft doesn't sue the developers of wine. I'm sure Microsoft would sue Apple if they tried to make OSX run Windows apps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People can do what they want .
Companies ca n't .
Apple does n't sue people for building hackintoshes the same way Microsoft does n't sue the developers of wine .
I 'm sure Microsoft would sue Apple if they tried to make OSX run Windows apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People can do what they want.
Companies can't.
Apple doesn't sue people for building hackintoshes the same way Microsoft doesn't sue the developers of wine.
I'm sure Microsoft would sue Apple if they tried to make OSX run Windows apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243862</id>
	<title>Where were you for CueCat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259317500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where were you for CueCat? They could have done with you then.</p><p>Or Lexmark's printer ink cartridges?</p><p>Or the garage door remote companies?</p><p>How about Car manufacturers with this government raping of their engine management information on the cards?</p><p>All of those had had their method of running their business (lock customers in and charge them out the wazoo) but you were silent. You may even have cheered on the breaking of their business methods.</p><p>But when Apple does it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where were you for CueCat ?
They could have done with you then.Or Lexmark 's printer ink cartridges ? Or the garage door remote companies ? How about Car manufacturers with this government raping of their engine management information on the cards ? All of those had had their method of running their business ( lock customers in and charge them out the wazoo ) but you were silent .
You may even have cheered on the breaking of their business methods.But when Apple does it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where were you for CueCat?
They could have done with you then.Or Lexmark's printer ink cartridges?Or the garage door remote companies?How about Car manufacturers with this government raping of their engine management information on the cards?All of those had had their method of running their business (lock customers in and charge them out the wazoo) but you were silent.
You may even have cheered on the breaking of their business methods.But when Apple does it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30244800</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259331300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why people hate you Mac fanboys. When it really really matters, you still bend over backwards to apologize for Apple instead of doing the right thing. This is the type of shit that really matters: people having the freedom to reverse engineer and to do whatever they want with software and hardware they lawfully purchased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why people hate you Mac fanboys .
When it really really matters , you still bend over backwards to apologize for Apple instead of doing the right thing .
This is the type of shit that really matters : people having the freedom to reverse engineer and to do whatever they want with software and hardware they lawfully purchased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why people hate you Mac fanboys.
When it really really matters, you still bend over backwards to apologize for Apple instead of doing the right thing.
This is the type of shit that really matters: people having the freedom to reverse engineer and to do whatever they want with software and hardware they lawfully purchased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238994</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259266800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the fuck are you babbling about?  There is plenty of information on making a Hackintosh and people do it all the time.  Psystar was reselling a hacked version of Mac OS X.  No company would allow that to their IP.  Apple isn't suing hackers who mod their computers and operating systems, they're suing someone trying to make a buck off their stuff.  Big difference.</p><p>As usual the idiots at slashdot modded you up to 5 Insightful, for a wrong observation about what is happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck are you babbling about ?
There is plenty of information on making a Hackintosh and people do it all the time .
Psystar was reselling a hacked version of Mac OS X. No company would allow that to their IP .
Apple is n't suing hackers who mod their computers and operating systems , they 're suing someone trying to make a buck off their stuff .
Big difference.As usual the idiots at slashdot modded you up to 5 Insightful , for a wrong observation about what is happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck are you babbling about?
There is plenty of information on making a Hackintosh and people do it all the time.
Psystar was reselling a hacked version of Mac OS X.  No company would allow that to their IP.
Apple isn't suing hackers who mod their computers and operating systems, they're suing someone trying to make a buck off their stuff.
Big difference.As usual the idiots at slashdot modded you up to 5 Insightful, for a wrong observation about what is happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239170</id>
	<title>Apple is very special</title>
	<author>Steeltoe</author>
	<datestamp>1259268420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have bought an (unlocked) iPhone and a 17" Macbook Pro. A few iPods are also on my conscience I must admit. The iPhone had to be unlocked. The Macbook Pro barely runs XP, after alot of fiddling with unofficial Bootcamp versions and whatnot. Why Apple can't seem to make regular updates for such software is beyond me. Maybe I have to buy the latest OS version, along with all the software again, to get updated? Oh yeah, I forgot, I probably have to buy a new computer from them as well then..</p><p>If OS X didn't try to screw you on purchasing every software you need, and was faster, it would get used, but I don't like the OS anymore. It's not UNIX either, but a bastard from the netherworlds posing as something great<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Although the hardware is great and software pretty decent, I am sick and tired of the restrictions set by Apple in both software and legality. For years they have been screwing over their customers, even their most hardcore fans setting up fansites etc. Everybody seems to be getting visits from Apple's legal team.</p><p>I hereby declare I will never ever buy anything from Apple again, for me, or even encourage anybody to buy something from them. In the end I will save money, and I will discourage companies like Apple playing the laws like they do. Oh, yeah, Apple's stocks will be discriminated against also.. They will not get my money again.</p><p>In short: fsck / chkdsk Apple!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>(If more people want to take similar pledges, that'll be cool)</p><p>I just think this will make the world a tad better. Thank you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have bought an ( unlocked ) iPhone and a 17 " Macbook Pro .
A few iPods are also on my conscience I must admit .
The iPhone had to be unlocked .
The Macbook Pro barely runs XP , after alot of fiddling with unofficial Bootcamp versions and whatnot .
Why Apple ca n't seem to make regular updates for such software is beyond me .
Maybe I have to buy the latest OS version , along with all the software again , to get updated ?
Oh yeah , I forgot , I probably have to buy a new computer from them as well then..If OS X did n't try to screw you on purchasing every software you need , and was faster , it would get used , but I do n't like the OS anymore .
It 's not UNIX either , but a bastard from the netherworlds posing as something great ; - ) Although the hardware is great and software pretty decent , I am sick and tired of the restrictions set by Apple in both software and legality .
For years they have been screwing over their customers , even their most hardcore fans setting up fansites etc .
Everybody seems to be getting visits from Apple 's legal team.I hereby declare I will never ever buy anything from Apple again , for me , or even encourage anybody to buy something from them .
In the end I will save money , and I will discourage companies like Apple playing the laws like they do .
Oh , yeah , Apple 's stocks will be discriminated against also.. They will not get my money again.In short : fsck / chkdsk Apple !
: - ) ( If more people want to take similar pledges , that 'll be cool ) I just think this will make the world a tad better .
Thank you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have bought an (unlocked) iPhone and a 17" Macbook Pro.
A few iPods are also on my conscience I must admit.
The iPhone had to be unlocked.
The Macbook Pro barely runs XP, after alot of fiddling with unofficial Bootcamp versions and whatnot.
Why Apple can't seem to make regular updates for such software is beyond me.
Maybe I have to buy the latest OS version, along with all the software again, to get updated?
Oh yeah, I forgot, I probably have to buy a new computer from them as well then..If OS X didn't try to screw you on purchasing every software you need, and was faster, it would get used, but I don't like the OS anymore.
It's not UNIX either, but a bastard from the netherworlds posing as something great ;-)Although the hardware is great and software pretty decent, I am sick and tired of the restrictions set by Apple in both software and legality.
For years they have been screwing over their customers, even their most hardcore fans setting up fansites etc.
Everybody seems to be getting visits from Apple's legal team.I hereby declare I will never ever buy anything from Apple again, for me, or even encourage anybody to buy something from them.
In the end I will save money, and I will discourage companies like Apple playing the laws like they do.
Oh, yeah, Apple's stocks will be discriminated against also.. They will not get my money again.In short: fsck / chkdsk Apple!
:-)(If more people want to take similar pledges, that'll be cool)I just think this will make the world a tad better.
Thank you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238868</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1259265780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.</i></p><p>Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?</p></div><p>I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements.  From my perspective it would be detrimental to their business models to place those kinds of restrictions on their products.  For Apple it helps their business model and therefore they have included that into the license.  You can argue that it might be worthy of anti-trust, might not be the best business model (though evidence points to it being highly effective) or anything else you can think of.  The fact that nobody else does this does not mean that it can't be done, just that those other parties haven't found it to be a worthwhile business idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.Out of interest where does , Microsoft Windows , Dos , Ubuntu , Photoshop , Autocad , Proteus , MS Office , Skype , All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture ? I guess it 's because those companies do n't have those provisions in their license agreements .
From my perspective it would be detrimental to their business models to place those kinds of restrictions on their products .
For Apple it helps their business model and therefore they have included that into the license .
You can argue that it might be worthy of anti-trust , might not be the best business model ( though evidence points to it being highly effective ) or anything else you can think of .
The fact that nobody else does this does not mean that it ca n't be done , just that those other parties have n't found it to be a worthwhile business idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements.
From my perspective it would be detrimental to their business models to place those kinds of restrictions on their products.
For Apple it helps their business model and therefore they have included that into the license.
You can argue that it might be worthy of anti-trust, might not be the best business model (though evidence points to it being highly effective) or anything else you can think of.
The fact that nobody else does this does not mean that it can't be done, just that those other parties haven't found it to be a worthwhile business idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530</id>
	<title>The way I see it</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1259263200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, Apple is Apple and I don't have to like the way they do things. I will however support them if someone is encroaching on the way they want to run their business. Cracking an Apple OS to run on a machine that Apple doesn't want to goes against what Apple wants to do with their OS. Yes, I know, they're still making money on an OS copy sold, so they shouldn't bitch, but if they want to thats their business.</p><p>Apple wants everything to stay within their box, and they want to have complete and utter control over that box. As long as Apple isn't trying to control whats outside the box - I don't care, but as I see it, OS X is part of their box. In the long run, their strictly closed box might be their downfall. No skin off my back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Apple is Apple and I do n't have to like the way they do things .
I will however support them if someone is encroaching on the way they want to run their business .
Cracking an Apple OS to run on a machine that Apple does n't want to goes against what Apple wants to do with their OS .
Yes , I know , they 're still making money on an OS copy sold , so they should n't bitch , but if they want to thats their business.Apple wants everything to stay within their box , and they want to have complete and utter control over that box .
As long as Apple is n't trying to control whats outside the box - I do n't care , but as I see it , OS X is part of their box .
In the long run , their strictly closed box might be their downfall .
No skin off my back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Apple is Apple and I don't have to like the way they do things.
I will however support them if someone is encroaching on the way they want to run their business.
Cracking an Apple OS to run on a machine that Apple doesn't want to goes against what Apple wants to do with their OS.
Yes, I know, they're still making money on an OS copy sold, so they shouldn't bitch, but if they want to thats their business.Apple wants everything to stay within their box, and they want to have complete and utter control over that box.
As long as Apple isn't trying to control whats outside the box - I don't care, but as I see it, OS X is part of their box.
In the long run, their strictly closed box might be their downfall.
No skin off my back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239604</id>
	<title>Format shifting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259229480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this so different from format shifting? Music industry makes a CD and says you can't play this on an iPod...shouldn't the music company have a right to say what boxes you can use to play your music? What if Microsoft says you can only install Windows on approved manufacturers (say, Fujitsu and Toshiba)? What if Microsoft says you can only run Internet Explorer on Windows? Anti-trust?</p><p>I don't see this as being all that different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this so different from format shifting ?
Music industry makes a CD and says you ca n't play this on an iPod...should n't the music company have a right to say what boxes you can use to play your music ?
What if Microsoft says you can only install Windows on approved manufacturers ( say , Fujitsu and Toshiba ) ?
What if Microsoft says you can only run Internet Explorer on Windows ?
Anti-trust ? I do n't see this as being all that different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this so different from format shifting?
Music industry makes a CD and says you can't play this on an iPod...shouldn't the music company have a right to say what boxes you can use to play your music?
What if Microsoft says you can only install Windows on approved manufacturers (say, Fujitsu and Toshiba)?
What if Microsoft says you can only run Internet Explorer on Windows?
Anti-trust?I don't see this as being all that different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238670</id>
	<title>Psystar f-ed it up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259264160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a case where Psystar was making boxes, buying retail copies of MacOS, installing those on the boxes and selling box and MacOS together.  That's how Psystar portrayed it, but it turns out that what they were actually doing was cloning all the machines from a master copy of the OS, then including a (still-unopened) copy of MacOS with the box.  If you want to use 17 USC 117 (running programs) and 17 USC 109 (First Sale), you have to actually observe the forms.  It's not enough to claim that the result is the same as if you'd observed the forms.  Thus the case was a slam-dunk for Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a case where Psystar was making boxes , buying retail copies of MacOS , installing those on the boxes and selling box and MacOS together .
That 's how Psystar portrayed it , but it turns out that what they were actually doing was cloning all the machines from a master copy of the OS , then including a ( still-unopened ) copy of MacOS with the box .
If you want to use 17 USC 117 ( running programs ) and 17 USC 109 ( First Sale ) , you have to actually observe the forms .
It 's not enough to claim that the result is the same as if you 'd observed the forms .
Thus the case was a slam-dunk for Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a case where Psystar was making boxes, buying retail copies of MacOS, installing those on the boxes and selling box and MacOS together.
That's how Psystar portrayed it, but it turns out that what they were actually doing was cloning all the machines from a master copy of the OS, then including a (still-unopened) copy of MacOS with the box.
If you want to use 17 USC 117 (running programs) and 17 USC 109 (First Sale), you have to actually observe the forms.
It's not enough to claim that the result is the same as if you'd observed the forms.
Thus the case was a slam-dunk for Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239300</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1259226540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not your property, it's Apple's. They sold you a licence to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not your property , it 's Apple 's .
They sold you a licence to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not your property, it's Apple's.
They sold you a licence to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243772</id>
	<title>Re:You mean</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259316300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?</i></p><p>As if that's only true with Apple.  NOT!!!</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own ? As if that 's only true with Apple .
NOT ! ! ! Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?As if that's only true with Apple.
NOT!!!

Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238424</id>
	<title>Smells like fags</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259262300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well ain't Apple full of dicks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well ai n't Apple full of dicks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well ain't Apple full of dicks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240550</id>
	<title>Re:Format shifting</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1259237820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Why is this so different from format shifting? Music industry makes a CD and says you can't play this on an iPod...shouldn't the music company have a right to say what boxes you can use to play your music? What if Microsoft says you can only install Windows on approved manufacturers (say, Fujitsu and Toshiba)? What if Microsoft says you can only run Internet Explorer on Windows? Anti-trust?</p></div><p>For many months the music industry allowed Amazon to sell music without DRM, while they didn't allow Apple's iTunes Music Store to do the same. I assume they had the right to do that, otherwise Apple would have sued them. This is not exactly what you asked, obviously. When you downloaded music with DRM from the iTunes Music Store, you actually only had a license to copy the music to iPods or burn them to a CD, nothing else (only iPods were capable to play the music anyway, but the license didn't allow any other players). That seems to have been legal as well. Now if someone sold CDs and I couldn't rip them and download and play the music on my iPod, I wouldn't buy the CD. A huge, huge percentage of potential customers would either ignore this, or not buy the CD. So the record company would lose lots of sales. That's why this doesn't happen. <br> <br>
With Microsoft, they have a monopoly in the operating system market. Apple is allowed to do things that Microsoft isn't allowed to do. (Actually, when Apple does the same thing as Microsoft, it is not the same. Like there is a difference between a six year old girl hitting you in the face and Mike Tyson doing the same thing. It just doesn't feel the same). <br> <br>
The last one, did you mean "only run Internet Explorer on Windows, not on MacOS X"? That's the case right now. Or did you mean "only run Internet Explorer on Windows, not Firefox"? That would be anti-competitive, because Microsoft wouldn't tell you what to do with \_their\_ software, but with someone else's software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this so different from format shifting ?
Music industry makes a CD and says you ca n't play this on an iPod...should n't the music company have a right to say what boxes you can use to play your music ?
What if Microsoft says you can only install Windows on approved manufacturers ( say , Fujitsu and Toshiba ) ?
What if Microsoft says you can only run Internet Explorer on Windows ?
Anti-trust ? For many months the music industry allowed Amazon to sell music without DRM , while they did n't allow Apple 's iTunes Music Store to do the same .
I assume they had the right to do that , otherwise Apple would have sued them .
This is not exactly what you asked , obviously .
When you downloaded music with DRM from the iTunes Music Store , you actually only had a license to copy the music to iPods or burn them to a CD , nothing else ( only iPods were capable to play the music anyway , but the license did n't allow any other players ) .
That seems to have been legal as well .
Now if someone sold CDs and I could n't rip them and download and play the music on my iPod , I would n't buy the CD .
A huge , huge percentage of potential customers would either ignore this , or not buy the CD .
So the record company would lose lots of sales .
That 's why this does n't happen .
With Microsoft , they have a monopoly in the operating system market .
Apple is allowed to do things that Microsoft is n't allowed to do .
( Actually , when Apple does the same thing as Microsoft , it is not the same .
Like there is a difference between a six year old girl hitting you in the face and Mike Tyson doing the same thing .
It just does n't feel the same ) .
The last one , did you mean " only run Internet Explorer on Windows , not on MacOS X " ?
That 's the case right now .
Or did you mean " only run Internet Explorer on Windows , not Firefox " ?
That would be anti-competitive , because Microsoft would n't tell you what to do with \ _their \ _ software , but with someone else 's software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why is this so different from format shifting?
Music industry makes a CD and says you can't play this on an iPod...shouldn't the music company have a right to say what boxes you can use to play your music?
What if Microsoft says you can only install Windows on approved manufacturers (say, Fujitsu and Toshiba)?
What if Microsoft says you can only run Internet Explorer on Windows?
Anti-trust?For many months the music industry allowed Amazon to sell music without DRM, while they didn't allow Apple's iTunes Music Store to do the same.
I assume they had the right to do that, otherwise Apple would have sued them.
This is not exactly what you asked, obviously.
When you downloaded music with DRM from the iTunes Music Store, you actually only had a license to copy the music to iPods or burn them to a CD, nothing else (only iPods were capable to play the music anyway, but the license didn't allow any other players).
That seems to have been legal as well.
Now if someone sold CDs and I couldn't rip them and download and play the music on my iPod, I wouldn't buy the CD.
A huge, huge percentage of potential customers would either ignore this, or not buy the CD.
So the record company would lose lots of sales.
That's why this doesn't happen.
With Microsoft, they have a monopoly in the operating system market.
Apple is allowed to do things that Microsoft isn't allowed to do.
(Actually, when Apple does the same thing as Microsoft, it is not the same.
Like there is a difference between a six year old girl hitting you in the face and Mike Tyson doing the same thing.
It just doesn't feel the same).
The last one, did you mean "only run Internet Explorer on Windows, not on MacOS X"?
That's the case right now.
Or did you mean "only run Internet Explorer on Windows, not Firefox"?
That would be anti-competitive, because Microsoft wouldn't tell you what to do with \_their\_ software, but with someone else's software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044</id>
	<title>A few reasons</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1259267280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog. Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple. They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's. It is a simple case of "I hate MS, these guys hate MS, so I like these guys."</p><p>Another is the cult/fanboy mentality Apple works to foster. They have always marketed their stuff as being superior, and implied that you are a superior person because you buy it. They work to create this cult-like status where you are "special" for being one of the chosen few who are an Apple user. That sort of thing leads to a "They can do no wrong," kind of mentality. Fanboys very much believe that their chosen brand/company is always right, whatever they say or do is correct. As such it doesn't matter how bad the action is, they defend it.</p><p>Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing, then they'll no longer be special. Despite their talk about OS-X being superior, the fanboys don't want everyone to have it because then they aren't special anymore, they are just normal.</p><p>That is really what it comes down to. Apple has a large fan base who is convinced they are the noble underdog, fighting the good fight. They don't examine their behavior objectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog .
Well , you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS , they like Apple .
They never bother to examine if Apple 's tactics are any better than MS 's .
It is a simple case of " I hate MS , these guys hate MS , so I like these guys .
" Another is the cult/fanboy mentality Apple works to foster .
They have always marketed their stuff as being superior , and implied that you are a superior person because you buy it .
They work to create this cult-like status where you are " special " for being one of the chosen few who are an Apple user .
That sort of thing leads to a " They can do no wrong , " kind of mentality .
Fanboys very much believe that their chosen brand/company is always right , whatever they say or do is correct .
As such it does n't matter how bad the action is , they defend it.Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing , then they 'll no longer be special .
Despite their talk about OS-X being superior , the fanboys do n't want everyone to have it because then they are n't special anymore , they are just normal.That is really what it comes down to .
Apple has a large fan base who is convinced they are the noble underdog , fighting the good fight .
They do n't examine their behavior objectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog.
Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple.
They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's.
It is a simple case of "I hate MS, these guys hate MS, so I like these guys.
"Another is the cult/fanboy mentality Apple works to foster.
They have always marketed their stuff as being superior, and implied that you are a superior person because you buy it.
They work to create this cult-like status where you are "special" for being one of the chosen few who are an Apple user.
That sort of thing leads to a "They can do no wrong," kind of mentality.
Fanboys very much believe that their chosen brand/company is always right, whatever they say or do is correct.
As such it doesn't matter how bad the action is, they defend it.Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing, then they'll no longer be special.
Despite their talk about OS-X being superior, the fanboys don't want everyone to have it because then they aren't special anymore, they are just normal.That is really what it comes down to.
Apple has a large fan base who is convinced they are the noble underdog, fighting the good fight.
They don't examine their behavior objectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238596</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259263620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.</i></p><p>Apple cannot make <b>any</b> conditions or restrictions on its use <b>after</b> the point of sale.  If they didn't make me agree to a restriction<br>before buying, they are unable to hold me to it afterwards.  applE might not like it but where I live the law agrees with me.</p><p>The last time I read the aPple license it said the OS must only be sold with an apPle branded computer.  Shipping it with an appLe mouse or<br>something similar would not violate that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.Apple can not make any conditions or restrictions on its use after the point of sale .
If they did n't make me agree to a restrictionbefore buying , they are unable to hold me to it afterwards .
applE might not like it but where I live the law agrees with me.The last time I read the aPple license it said the OS must only be sold with an apPle branded computer .
Shipping it with an appLe mouse orsomething similar would not violate that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.Apple cannot make any conditions or restrictions on its use after the point of sale.
If they didn't make me agree to a restrictionbefore buying, they are unable to hold me to it afterwards.
applE might not like it but where I live the law agrees with me.The last time I read the aPple license it said the OS must only be sold with an apPle branded computer.
Shipping it with an appLe mouse orsomething similar would not violate that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239398</id>
	<title>Go read some EULAs and have a fit</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1259227500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?</p></div><p>Go read the EULAs that come with all of those products, for a long list of things that you cannot do with "your" copy. Such as run the cheaper versions of Windows on any sort of virtual machine, move the OEM windows bundled with your PC onto another machine, use your educational-licence copy of Photoshop for commercial work...
</p><p>The details are different, but the principle is the same: you don't own the copy you bought.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Every single other company works that way.</p></div><p>In your dreams. Well, maybe Ubuntu since the GPL only really kicks in if you want to modify or redistribute.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of interest where does , Microsoft Windows , Dos , Ubuntu , Photoshop , Autocad , Proteus , MS Office , Skype , All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture ? Go read the EULAs that come with all of those products , for a long list of things that you can not do with " your " copy .
Such as run the cheaper versions of Windows on any sort of virtual machine , move the OEM windows bundled with your PC onto another machine , use your educational-licence copy of Photoshop for commercial work.. . The details are different , but the principle is the same : you do n't own the copy you bought.Every single other company works that way.In your dreams .
Well , maybe Ubuntu since the GPL only really kicks in if you want to modify or redistribute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?Go read the EULAs that come with all of those products, for a long list of things that you cannot do with "your" copy.
Such as run the cheaper versions of Windows on any sort of virtual machine, move the OEM windows bundled with your PC onto another machine, use your educational-licence copy of Photoshop for commercial work...
The details are different, but the principle is the same: you don't own the copy you bought.Every single other company works that way.In your dreams.
Well, maybe Ubuntu since the GPL only really kicks in if you want to modify or redistribute.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241788</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>KillShill</author>
	<datestamp>1259248080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, Business Models (tm) are king.

No one, least of all us peons would/should dare to think we have any rights not granted to us by our multi-billion dollar overlords.

Please bend over and receive your new RFID tracking/DNA monitoring chip while you wait to get a half-eaten fruit tatooed on your forehead.

Move along citizen err "consumer asshole" (George Carlin)...

The day i support corporate rights over public ones is the day i no longer consider myself a moral person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Business Models ( tm ) are king .
No one , least of all us peons would/should dare to think we have any rights not granted to us by our multi-billion dollar overlords .
Please bend over and receive your new RFID tracking/DNA monitoring chip while you wait to get a half-eaten fruit tatooed on your forehead .
Move along citizen err " consumer asshole " ( George Carlin ) .. . The day i support corporate rights over public ones is the day i no longer consider myself a moral person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Business Models (tm) are king.
No one, least of all us peons would/should dare to think we have any rights not granted to us by our multi-billion dollar overlords.
Please bend over and receive your new RFID tracking/DNA monitoring chip while you wait to get a half-eaten fruit tatooed on your forehead.
Move along citizen err "consumer asshole" (George Carlin)...

The day i support corporate rights over public ones is the day i no longer consider myself a moral person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239542</id>
	<title>New laws that separate the purchase of products.</title>
	<author>vosester</author>
	<datestamp>1259229000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I think we need new laws that separate the purchase of hardware and software.<br>So people know what they are buying, because in sales whether it be Microsoft Windows or a Netgear router you are buying software as well as the hardware.</p><p>Form my posts on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. any one can see I am a fan of Mac&rsquo;s so running OS X without the hardware defeats the purpose of the platform for me.</p><p>But I can see it form the other side. What if I wanted to buy Mac hardware but want to run Linux or Windows, why should I have to pay for the development and sale price of OS X if I am not going to use it. We use the same argument against OEM&rsquo;s with MS Windows.</p><p>If you switch the situation and just want the software, I can see that point as well. But I would not hold Apple responsible to support me in any way.</p><p>Who is funding Psystar?<br>I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s Microsoft as that would be a dumb move ether way it goes.<br>I think it is one of the OEM&rsquo;s myself, as they have noting to lose if this goes Apple&rsquo;s way and hole lot to gain if it doesn&rsquo;t.</p><p>Apple needs to stop this now before the EULA is really tested, it might go their way this time. But it will not stop, people and companies want OS X and if any thing about technology has been proven to us, is that they will find a way to run.</p><p>I think Apple should license OS X now while they have the power to put in place some restriction. They could make the license ridiculous priced and restrictive, The OEM&rsquo;s would still lap it up for the chance to get rid of Windows. As for Linux the OEM&rsquo;s have dabbled it this space. But they still have the 1980&rsquo;s mentality of they would rather license the software than level the playing field with their competitors.</p><p>A company that licenses OS X would not be able to use Apple trademarks. But the OEM&rsquo;s could call it Dell OS or something like that and it would be &ldquo;OS X compatible&rdquo;. They could make a range of premium computing to stay in the price range of Mac&rsquo;s.</p><p>As to argument that it will kill Apple it could do, but they are in different places now and the market has changed a hole lot since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think we need new laws that separate the purchase of hardware and software.So people know what they are buying , because in sales whether it be Microsoft Windows or a Netgear router you are buying software as well as the hardware.Form my posts on / .
any one can see I am a fan of Mac    s so running OS X without the hardware defeats the purpose of the platform for me.But I can see it form the other side .
What if I wanted to buy Mac hardware but want to run Linux or Windows , why should I have to pay for the development and sale price of OS X if I am not going to use it .
We use the same argument against OEM    s with MS Windows.If you switch the situation and just want the software , I can see that point as well .
But I would not hold Apple responsible to support me in any way.Who is funding Psystar ? I don    t think it    s Microsoft as that would be a dumb move ether way it goes.I think it is one of the OEM    s myself , as they have noting to lose if this goes Apple    s way and hole lot to gain if it doesn    t.Apple needs to stop this now before the EULA is really tested , it might go their way this time .
But it will not stop , people and companies want OS X and if any thing about technology has been proven to us , is that they will find a way to run.I think Apple should license OS X now while they have the power to put in place some restriction .
They could make the license ridiculous priced and restrictive , The OEM    s would still lap it up for the chance to get rid of Windows .
As for Linux the OEM    s have dabbled it this space .
But they still have the 1980    s mentality of they would rather license the software than level the playing field with their competitors.A company that licenses OS X would not be able to use Apple trademarks .
But the OEM    s could call it Dell OS or something like that and it would be    OS X compatible    .
They could make a range of premium computing to stay in the price range of Mac    s.As to argument that it will kill Apple it could do , but they are in different places now and the market has changed a hole lot since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think we need new laws that separate the purchase of hardware and software.So people know what they are buying, because in sales whether it be Microsoft Windows or a Netgear router you are buying software as well as the hardware.Form my posts on /.
any one can see I am a fan of Mac’s so running OS X without the hardware defeats the purpose of the platform for me.But I can see it form the other side.
What if I wanted to buy Mac hardware but want to run Linux or Windows, why should I have to pay for the development and sale price of OS X if I am not going to use it.
We use the same argument against OEM’s with MS Windows.If you switch the situation and just want the software, I can see that point as well.
But I would not hold Apple responsible to support me in any way.Who is funding Psystar?I don’t think it’s Microsoft as that would be a dumb move ether way it goes.I think it is one of the OEM’s myself, as they have noting to lose if this goes Apple’s way and hole lot to gain if it doesn’t.Apple needs to stop this now before the EULA is really tested, it might go their way this time.
But it will not stop, people and companies want OS X and if any thing about technology has been proven to us, is that they will find a way to run.I think Apple should license OS X now while they have the power to put in place some restriction.
They could make the license ridiculous priced and restrictive, The OEM’s would still lap it up for the chance to get rid of Windows.
As for Linux the OEM’s have dabbled it this space.
But they still have the 1980’s mentality of they would rather license the software than level the playing field with their competitors.A company that licenses OS X would not be able to use Apple trademarks.
But the OEM’s could call it Dell OS or something like that and it would be “OS X compatible”.
They could make a range of premium computing to stay in the price range of Mac’s.As to argument that it will kill Apple it could do, but they are in different places now and the market has changed a hole lot since then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30251344</id>
	<title>Anti-Apple Fanboys = Tea Partiers?</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1259329800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's just something in their craw. I see nice new 27" iMacs I'd love to own, they see a tyranny and a conspiracy against their freedom! Kind of like thinking that health care reform = Dachau.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's just something in their craw .
I see nice new 27 " iMacs I 'd love to own , they see a tyranny and a conspiracy against their freedom !
Kind of like thinking that health care reform = Dachau .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's just something in their craw.
I see nice new 27" iMacs I'd love to own, they see a tyranny and a conspiracy against their freedom!
Kind of like thinking that health care reform = Dachau.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241312</id>
	<title>Re:A few reasons</title>
	<author>freedumb2000</author>
	<datestamp>1259243700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BS. Apples business tactics are just as vile as those of MS, everyone knows that. Apple just makes the more user-friendly machines IMHO. That's all. That's the geek factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BS .
Apples business tactics are just as vile as those of MS , everyone knows that .
Apple just makes the more user-friendly machines IMHO .
That 's all .
That 's the geek factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BS.
Apples business tactics are just as vile as those of MS, everyone knows that.
Apple just makes the more user-friendly machines IMHO.
That's all.
That's the geek factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239588</id>
	<title>To Equate this to other field:</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1259229360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This would be the same as telling me I can't put a Chevy LS6 motor in my 34 Ford Coupe. The motor by itself does nothing but put it in a car and its the heart of it. Same thing here. I'm not going to sell the car as a chevy. Whats the problem?
Apple need to get a clue, as well as the rest of this $#\%#'d up industry. This is the only time I can remember when it was an honor, or privilege, to be able to buy or use products from certain vendors. Apple, M$oft, Verizon, ATT, Direct TV, all come to mind.  If you don't use their products EXACTLY how they say, shame on you! I guess I should start worrying about Levi as I cut up an old pair of jeans and use the rags in the garage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be the same as telling me I ca n't put a Chevy LS6 motor in my 34 Ford Coupe .
The motor by itself does nothing but put it in a car and its the heart of it .
Same thing here .
I 'm not going to sell the car as a chevy .
Whats the problem ?
Apple need to get a clue , as well as the rest of this $ # \ % # 'd up industry .
This is the only time I can remember when it was an honor , or privilege , to be able to buy or use products from certain vendors .
Apple , M $ oft , Verizon , ATT , Direct TV , all come to mind .
If you do n't use their products EXACTLY how they say , shame on you !
I guess I should start worrying about Levi as I cut up an old pair of jeans and use the rags in the garage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be the same as telling me I can't put a Chevy LS6 motor in my 34 Ford Coupe.
The motor by itself does nothing but put it in a car and its the heart of it.
Same thing here.
I'm not going to sell the car as a chevy.
Whats the problem?
Apple need to get a clue, as well as the rest of this $#\%#'d up industry.
This is the only time I can remember when it was an honor, or privilege, to be able to buy or use products from certain vendors.
Apple, M$oft, Verizon, ATT, Direct TV, all come to mind.
If you don't use their products EXACTLY how they say, shame on you!
I guess I should start worrying about Levi as I cut up an old pair of jeans and use the rags in the garage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238910</id>
	<title>Why do hobbyists insist of violating Apples IP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259266140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is so much other software out there that gives you the freedom do what you want with it, why do you waste your time pirating and violating Apple's copyrights and IP by making derivatives of OSX. They don't want you to do that, and they own the software, you really lack the rights to do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is so much other software out there that gives you the freedom do what you want with it , why do you waste your time pirating and violating Apple 's copyrights and IP by making derivatives of OSX .
They do n't want you to do that , and they own the software , you really lack the rights to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is so much other software out there that gives you the freedom do what you want with it, why do you waste your time pirating and violating Apple's copyrights and IP by making derivatives of OSX.
They don't want you to do that, and they own the software, you really lack the rights to do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239350</id>
	<title>They're competing against apple with Apples own...</title>
	<author>jimboindeutchland</author>
	<datestamp>1259227020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...software.</p><p>Imagine you made a device and spent the time and energy to write some really nice software for it and started happily selling your device.  The somebody comes along and starts putting your software on their own cheaper hardware and starts selling that.  In this case, they're using your own software as a tool to compete against you.</p><p>I don't see how would be wrong for you to want to stop that someone from using your software.</p><p>A lot of the discussion here seems to be about whether it's ok to use Apple's software on your own PC.  I don't think that's totally unethical.  What you do as an individual with your own computer is your business.  However, starting a company and attempting to compete against them in the computer hardware market is a completely different thing.  Pystar is clearly using the fact that you can buy one of their machines with OSX installed as their "unique selling proposition".  Discussion about how Pystar is getting OSX onto the machine seems moot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...software.Imagine you made a device and spent the time and energy to write some really nice software for it and started happily selling your device .
The somebody comes along and starts putting your software on their own cheaper hardware and starts selling that .
In this case , they 're using your own software as a tool to compete against you.I do n't see how would be wrong for you to want to stop that someone from using your software.A lot of the discussion here seems to be about whether it 's ok to use Apple 's software on your own PC .
I do n't think that 's totally unethical .
What you do as an individual with your own computer is your business .
However , starting a company and attempting to compete against them in the computer hardware market is a completely different thing .
Pystar is clearly using the fact that you can buy one of their machines with OSX installed as their " unique selling proposition " .
Discussion about how Pystar is getting OSX onto the machine seems moot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...software.Imagine you made a device and spent the time and energy to write some really nice software for it and started happily selling your device.
The somebody comes along and starts putting your software on their own cheaper hardware and starts selling that.
In this case, they're using your own software as a tool to compete against you.I don't see how would be wrong for you to want to stop that someone from using your software.A lot of the discussion here seems to be about whether it's ok to use Apple's software on your own PC.
I don't think that's totally unethical.
What you do as an individual with your own computer is your business.
However, starting a company and attempting to compete against them in the computer hardware market is a completely different thing.
Pystar is clearly using the fact that you can buy one of their machines with OSX installed as their "unique selling proposition".
Discussion about how Pystar is getting OSX onto the machine seems moot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30248000</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is ..</title>
	<author>kuzb</author>
	<datestamp>1259353740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that their model can't stand up to hardware lock-in is a sign that perhaps they need to rethink their model (which for mac computers is arguably bad) instead of cramming it down the throats of their customers.  Many people would like to use OS X.  Many people do not want an overpriced mac.</p><p>Many people I'm sure would continue to buy computers from Apple despite the fact that you could install OS X on a PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that their model ca n't stand up to hardware lock-in is a sign that perhaps they need to rethink their model ( which for mac computers is arguably bad ) instead of cramming it down the throats of their customers .
Many people would like to use OS X. Many people do not want an overpriced mac.Many people I 'm sure would continue to buy computers from Apple despite the fact that you could install OS X on a PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that their model can't stand up to hardware lock-in is a sign that perhaps they need to rethink their model (which for mac computers is arguably bad) instead of cramming it down the throats of their customers.
Many people would like to use OS X.  Many people do not want an overpriced mac.Many people I'm sure would continue to buy computers from Apple despite the fact that you could install OS X on a PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241346</id>
	<title>Re:Why do companies keep doing this?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1259244000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Someone needs to sit down with these companies and explain how this crushing business works.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Someone needs to sit down and explain how this business of being crushed works.<br> <br>

You're thinking logically about how to make money, that's your first mistake, stop. People who start these businesses and the people who bankroll these business know that they will be crushed but before then there is a small amount of time to undercut the big boys and make a lot of money in the process. So its not about trying to create a sustainable business as much as it is about making a quick buck and getting that buck out of the country before the big boys can react.<br> <br>

From a VC point of view its also about creating a loss on the books as a tax offset (whilst keeping the profits in a secret Cayman Island account).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone needs to sit down with these companies and explain how this crushing business works .
Someone needs to sit down and explain how this business of being crushed works .
You 're thinking logically about how to make money , that 's your first mistake , stop .
People who start these businesses and the people who bankroll these business know that they will be crushed but before then there is a small amount of time to undercut the big boys and make a lot of money in the process .
So its not about trying to create a sustainable business as much as it is about making a quick buck and getting that buck out of the country before the big boys can react .
From a VC point of view its also about creating a loss on the books as a tax offset ( whilst keeping the profits in a secret Cayman Island account ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone needs to sit down with these companies and explain how this crushing business works.
Someone needs to sit down and explain how this business of being crushed works.
You're thinking logically about how to make money, that's your first mistake, stop.
People who start these businesses and the people who bankroll these business know that they will be crushed but before then there is a small amount of time to undercut the big boys and make a lot of money in the process.
So its not about trying to create a sustainable business as much as it is about making a quick buck and getting that buck out of the country before the big boys can react.
From a VC point of view its also about creating a loss on the books as a tax offset (whilst keeping the profits in a secret Cayman Island account).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239286</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>Steeltoe</author>
	<datestamp>1259226360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the difference though? Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.</p><p>What you're suggesting is insane. The only difference is having to install everything manually on every computer, or just cloning the same bits and bytes. What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?</p><p>The law should not be stupid, but be interpreted according to common sense. If this is how it is, either this broken legal system needs further fixes, or we just need to stay away from proprietary software altogether - too much risk and arbitrary decisions in the hands of the wrong people..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the difference though ?
Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.What you 're suggesting is insane .
The only difference is having to install everything manually on every computer , or just cloning the same bits and bytes .
What 's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money ? The law should not be stupid , but be interpreted according to common sense .
If this is how it is , either this broken legal system needs further fixes , or we just need to stay away from proprietary software altogether - too much risk and arbitrary decisions in the hands of the wrong people. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the difference though?
Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.What you're suggesting is insane.
The only difference is having to install everything manually on every computer, or just cloning the same bits and bytes.
What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?The law should not be stupid, but be interpreted according to common sense.
If this is how it is, either this broken legal system needs further fixes, or we just need to stay away from proprietary software altogether - too much risk and arbitrary decisions in the hands of the wrong people..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239416</id>
	<title>Disappointing</title>
	<author>aaaaaaargh!</author>
	<datestamp>1259227740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is disappointing me more and more. I've been a Mac user for more than 15 years, but this month I'll be switching to an ordinary PC with Ubuntu on it. The new machine is already ordered. It is as powerful as a MacPro and costs half of it. (One thing that annoys me is that I need to keep my old Mac to be able to compile software for OS X, but perhaps the Hackintosh solution will help me get rid of this piece of junk.) The main reasons:</p><ul><li>Apple has always made sure to lock you you in to their platform, but recently they have been getting more and more aggressive. The Psystar case, iPhone locking, and the total control of the iPhone app store are just the tip of the iceberg.</li><li>By sneaking downwards incompatibility into their developer tools and making it very hard to develop without them (with the exception of Qt, perhaps), Apple ensures that you will not be able to run new software on old computers.</li><li>You cannot upgrade the graphics card on iMacs. Not only that, Apple only sells new iMacs with old and already outdated graphics cards, just to make sure that you will *have* to buy a new machine after 2-3 years.</li><li>It started with those annoying and extremely unfunny Mac vs. PC ads that I asked myself: Why I should stick to a Mac? I use Linux for work anyway.And since iPods and iPhones apparently  became Apple's main source of income, Apple is just not what it was before. Apple used to be for people that want to get things done, but now the company seems to be more interested in mentally retarded Twitter users as customers, a clientel to which I don't belong because I don't have or need a cell phone.</li></ul><p>Goodbye Apple!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is disappointing me more and more .
I 've been a Mac user for more than 15 years , but this month I 'll be switching to an ordinary PC with Ubuntu on it .
The new machine is already ordered .
It is as powerful as a MacPro and costs half of it .
( One thing that annoys me is that I need to keep my old Mac to be able to compile software for OS X , but perhaps the Hackintosh solution will help me get rid of this piece of junk .
) The main reasons : Apple has always made sure to lock you you in to their platform , but recently they have been getting more and more aggressive .
The Psystar case , iPhone locking , and the total control of the iPhone app store are just the tip of the iceberg.By sneaking downwards incompatibility into their developer tools and making it very hard to develop without them ( with the exception of Qt , perhaps ) , Apple ensures that you will not be able to run new software on old computers.You can not upgrade the graphics card on iMacs .
Not only that , Apple only sells new iMacs with old and already outdated graphics cards , just to make sure that you will * have * to buy a new machine after 2-3 years.It started with those annoying and extremely unfunny Mac vs. PC ads that I asked myself : Why I should stick to a Mac ?
I use Linux for work anyway.And since iPods and iPhones apparently became Apple 's main source of income , Apple is just not what it was before .
Apple used to be for people that want to get things done , but now the company seems to be more interested in mentally retarded Twitter users as customers , a clientel to which I do n't belong because I do n't have or need a cell phone.Goodbye Apple !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is disappointing me more and more.
I've been a Mac user for more than 15 years, but this month I'll be switching to an ordinary PC with Ubuntu on it.
The new machine is already ordered.
It is as powerful as a MacPro and costs half of it.
(One thing that annoys me is that I need to keep my old Mac to be able to compile software for OS X, but perhaps the Hackintosh solution will help me get rid of this piece of junk.
) The main reasons:Apple has always made sure to lock you you in to their platform, but recently they have been getting more and more aggressive.
The Psystar case, iPhone locking, and the total control of the iPhone app store are just the tip of the iceberg.By sneaking downwards incompatibility into their developer tools and making it very hard to develop without them (with the exception of Qt, perhaps), Apple ensures that you will not be able to run new software on old computers.You cannot upgrade the graphics card on iMacs.
Not only that, Apple only sells new iMacs with old and already outdated graphics cards, just to make sure that you will *have* to buy a new machine after 2-3 years.It started with those annoying and extremely unfunny Mac vs. PC ads that I asked myself: Why I should stick to a Mac?
I use Linux for work anyway.And since iPods and iPhones apparently  became Apple's main source of income, Apple is just not what it was before.
Apple used to be for people that want to get things done, but now the company seems to be more interested in mentally retarded Twitter users as customers, a clientel to which I don't belong because I don't have or need a cell phone.Goodbye Apple!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239276</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>AnotherShep</author>
	<datestamp>1259226300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, because they cloned it, not copied it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , because they cloned it , not copied it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, because they cloned it, not copied it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243074</id>
	<title>Apple need to get a clue</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259263620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple tried <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac\_clones" title="wikipedia.org">Mac clones</a> [wikipedia.org] and lost money.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple tried Mac clones [ wikipedia.org ] and lost money .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple tried Mac clones [wikipedia.org] and lost money.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238942</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259266380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bullshit. What I do with my property after I've legally purchased it is MY FUCKING BUSINESS.</p> </div><p>I see. So because you bought a gun legally any crimes you commit with it are your fucking business and the courts should stay out of it?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Their opinions about what I should and shouldn't do with my property shouldn't be legal obligations. They manufactured it, I bought it, it's mine.</p></div><p>Sure it is, but it's still copyrighted. You can't make a million copies of a copyrighted book and sell them without a license that allows you to do so. You can't copy OS X onto hundreds of computers and sell them without a license that allows you to do so.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If I want to put the engine from my Ford into a Dodge, that's my business, and Ford shouldn't be able to stop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Your analogy is broken. It's more like copying the engine in your ford, installing it into Dodges, and selling them for profit. Just because you bought the first one does not men you can ignore the patents involved and a license to use the patents in a specific case, does not grant you the legal right to do anything else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
What I do with my property after I 've legally purchased it is MY FUCKING BUSINESS .
I see .
So because you bought a gun legally any crimes you commit with it are your fucking business and the courts should stay out of it ? Their opinions about what I should and should n't do with my property should n't be legal obligations .
They manufactured it , I bought it , it 's mine.Sure it is , but it 's still copyrighted .
You ca n't make a million copies of a copyrighted book and sell them without a license that allows you to do so .
You ca n't copy OS X onto hundreds of computers and sell them without a license that allows you to do so.If I want to put the engine from my Ford into a Dodge , that 's my business , and Ford should n't be able to stop ...Your analogy is broken .
It 's more like copying the engine in your ford , installing it into Dodges , and selling them for profit .
Just because you bought the first one does not men you can ignore the patents involved and a license to use the patents in a specific case , does not grant you the legal right to do anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
What I do with my property after I've legally purchased it is MY FUCKING BUSINESS.
I see.
So because you bought a gun legally any crimes you commit with it are your fucking business and the courts should stay out of it?Their opinions about what I should and shouldn't do with my property shouldn't be legal obligations.
They manufactured it, I bought it, it's mine.Sure it is, but it's still copyrighted.
You can't make a million copies of a copyrighted book and sell them without a license that allows you to do so.
You can't copy OS X onto hundreds of computers and sell them without a license that allows you to do so.If I want to put the engine from my Ford into a Dodge, that's my business, and Ford shouldn't be able to stop ...Your analogy is broken.
It's more like copying the engine in your ford, installing it into Dodges, and selling them for profit.
Just because you bought the first one does not men you can ignore the patents involved and a license to use the patents in a specific case, does not grant you the legal right to do anything else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238698</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259264400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit. Apple sell software. If they were really wanted it installed on Crapple devices only, the first thing it would do is ask for your machine's serial number.</p><p>Apple zealots like you need to stop taking shit done by this Microsoft V2 personally. They don't give a fuck about you and your gay-clan. You exist to open your purse and line their bank accounts, nothing more. You Apple fanboys remind me of the wife that won't leave the wife-beating husband.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
Apple sell software .
If they were really wanted it installed on Crapple devices only , the first thing it would do is ask for your machine 's serial number.Apple zealots like you need to stop taking shit done by this Microsoft V2 personally .
They do n't give a fuck about you and your gay-clan .
You exist to open your purse and line their bank accounts , nothing more .
You Apple fanboys remind me of the wife that wo n't leave the wife-beating husband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
Apple sell software.
If they were really wanted it installed on Crapple devices only, the first thing it would do is ask for your machine's serial number.Apple zealots like you need to stop taking shit done by this Microsoft V2 personally.
They don't give a fuck about you and your gay-clan.
You exist to open your purse and line their bank accounts, nothing more.
You Apple fanboys remind me of the wife that won't leave the wife-beating husband.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30245004</id>
	<title>Re:Why do hobbyists insist of violating Apples IP?</title>
	<author>Per Wigren</author>
	<datestamp>1259333580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My home computer is a Hackintosh simply because I like MacOS X, the software.
I don't think I am morally wrong and I seriously don't think that I cause Apple any harm.
On the contrary, me buying a copy of Snow Leopard and installing it on a home built PC gives Apple a positive net win compared to the alternative: Me not buying Snow Leopard at all.
Apple gets more money, I save money by getting a much cheaper computer. I also sometimes help Open Source projects with OSX-specific patches. It's a true win-win situation!
This talk about rights is just narrow minded bureaucratic nonsense, IMHO. Apple should just shut up and enjoy the money!</htmltext>
<tokenext>My home computer is a Hackintosh simply because I like MacOS X , the software .
I do n't think I am morally wrong and I seriously do n't think that I cause Apple any harm .
On the contrary , me buying a copy of Snow Leopard and installing it on a home built PC gives Apple a positive net win compared to the alternative : Me not buying Snow Leopard at all .
Apple gets more money , I save money by getting a much cheaper computer .
I also sometimes help Open Source projects with OSX-specific patches .
It 's a true win-win situation !
This talk about rights is just narrow minded bureaucratic nonsense , IMHO .
Apple should just shut up and enjoy the money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My home computer is a Hackintosh simply because I like MacOS X, the software.
I don't think I am morally wrong and I seriously don't think that I cause Apple any harm.
On the contrary, me buying a copy of Snow Leopard and installing it on a home built PC gives Apple a positive net win compared to the alternative: Me not buying Snow Leopard at all.
Apple gets more money, I save money by getting a much cheaper computer.
I also sometimes help Open Source projects with OSX-specific patches.
It's a true win-win situation!
This talk about rights is just narrow minded bureaucratic nonsense, IMHO.
Apple should just shut up and enjoy the money!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238932</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>zoloto</author>
	<datestamp>1259266380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's fine and dandy until you try to mass produce and sell systems with software installed that the license forbids it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's fine and dandy until you try to mass produce and sell systems with software installed that the license forbids it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's fine and dandy until you try to mass produce and sell systems with software installed that the license forbids it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30247314</id>
	<title>Re:Why do hobbyists insist of violating Apples IP?</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1259349660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>violating Apple's copyrights and IP by making derivatives of OSX</em></p><p>As long as you do not redistribute the result, making an adaptation of an operating system that you have legitimately acquired a copy of as an "essential step" in the use of it on "a machine" is not a violation of Apple's copyrights let alone some other amorphous "IP".</p><p>See <a href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html" title="bitlaw.com">17 USC 117(a)</a> [bitlaw.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>violating Apple 's copyrights and IP by making derivatives of OSXAs long as you do not redistribute the result , making an adaptation of an operating system that you have legitimately acquired a copy of as an " essential step " in the use of it on " a machine " is not a violation of Apple 's copyrights let alone some other amorphous " IP " .See 17 USC 117 ( a ) [ bitlaw.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>violating Apple's copyrights and IP by making derivatives of OSXAs long as you do not redistribute the result, making an adaptation of an operating system that you have legitimately acquired a copy of as an "essential step" in the use of it on "a machine" is not a violation of Apple's copyrights let alone some other amorphous "IP".See 17 USC 117(a) [bitlaw.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30242860</id>
	<title>Re:A few reasons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259260260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scariest thing of all: this is actually what they <i>subconsciously</i> believe, and they have no doubt about their own subjectivity.<br>Coupled with media exposure and ass-pull statistics, they believe there are more people having problems with Windows, but when you take the whole Windows user base into account, the actual percentage isn't that much different at all. There are different problems on each platform (viruses come to mind), they're just not ready to accept that fact. And it's funny when you think there are probably more people who complain about windows (which is the Vocal minority) than the total number of mac users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scariest thing of all : this is actually what they subconsciously believe , and they have no doubt about their own subjectivity.Coupled with media exposure and ass-pull statistics , they believe there are more people having problems with Windows , but when you take the whole Windows user base into account , the actual percentage is n't that much different at all .
There are different problems on each platform ( viruses come to mind ) , they 're just not ready to accept that fact .
And it 's funny when you think there are probably more people who complain about windows ( which is the Vocal minority ) than the total number of mac users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scariest thing of all: this is actually what they subconsciously believe, and they have no doubt about their own subjectivity.Coupled with media exposure and ass-pull statistics, they believe there are more people having problems with Windows, but when you take the whole Windows user base into account, the actual percentage isn't that much different at all.
There are different problems on each platform (viruses come to mind), they're just not ready to accept that fact.
And it's funny when you think there are probably more people who complain about windows (which is the Vocal minority) than the total number of mac users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239316</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1259226660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft does in the form of badges or certification.</p><p>Vista Approved, Designed for Vista, etc... These come from Microsoft and not the hardware maker.</p><p>However for Microsoft they go the opposite route. Rather than trying to restrict it, they label it to hardware that can barely do the job.</p><p>Of course this was an Intel/Microsoft clusterfsck, where Intel wanted to sell lots of old crappy motherboards, with terrible crappy integrated video, and Microsoft really wanted to release their new OS.</p><p>From some perspective it makes sense for Apple to limit. It keeps idiots from complaining, and most Apple users are idiots (ducks!). For example, if you try and run some software, on hardware that can't handle it, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about, you can come to the definite conclusion that their software must suck because it runs so slow, not that your hardware is obsolete and utter garbage. This works the other way as well. If you try running some horrible bunged up software on some awesome cutting edge hardware, they can come to the conclusion that the hardware clearly isn't powerful and not worth your time.</p><p>As I said Apple, knowing their users (idiots), know they do not really want to know all this fiddly stuff like information, and facts, they just want it to "work". They core market isn't interested in hacking OS X onto some crazy hardware. They want to go to iTunes,  and buy all their "stuff" at the Apple Store. So it makes sense to limit the functionality, at least from their perspective, as this is the market to which they serve.</p><p>Anyway I am jk about the whole idiot thing, I just like stirring the pot...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft does in the form of badges or certification.Vista Approved , Designed for Vista , etc... These come from Microsoft and not the hardware maker.However for Microsoft they go the opposite route .
Rather than trying to restrict it , they label it to hardware that can barely do the job.Of course this was an Intel/Microsoft clusterfsck , where Intel wanted to sell lots of old crappy motherboards , with terrible crappy integrated video , and Microsoft really wanted to release their new OS.From some perspective it makes sense for Apple to limit .
It keeps idiots from complaining , and most Apple users are idiots ( ducks ! ) .
For example , if you try and run some software , on hardware that ca n't handle it , and you do n't know what the hell you are talking about , you can come to the definite conclusion that their software must suck because it runs so slow , not that your hardware is obsolete and utter garbage .
This works the other way as well .
If you try running some horrible bunged up software on some awesome cutting edge hardware , they can come to the conclusion that the hardware clearly is n't powerful and not worth your time.As I said Apple , knowing their users ( idiots ) , know they do not really want to know all this fiddly stuff like information , and facts , they just want it to " work " .
They core market is n't interested in hacking OS X onto some crazy hardware .
They want to go to iTunes , and buy all their " stuff " at the Apple Store .
So it makes sense to limit the functionality , at least from their perspective , as this is the market to which they serve.Anyway I am jk about the whole idiot thing , I just like stirring the pot... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft does in the form of badges or certification.Vista Approved, Designed for Vista, etc... These come from Microsoft and not the hardware maker.However for Microsoft they go the opposite route.
Rather than trying to restrict it, they label it to hardware that can barely do the job.Of course this was an Intel/Microsoft clusterfsck, where Intel wanted to sell lots of old crappy motherboards, with terrible crappy integrated video, and Microsoft really wanted to release their new OS.From some perspective it makes sense for Apple to limit.
It keeps idiots from complaining, and most Apple users are idiots (ducks!).
For example, if you try and run some software, on hardware that can't handle it, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about, you can come to the definite conclusion that their software must suck because it runs so slow, not that your hardware is obsolete and utter garbage.
This works the other way as well.
If you try running some horrible bunged up software on some awesome cutting edge hardware, they can come to the conclusion that the hardware clearly isn't powerful and not worth your time.As I said Apple, knowing their users (idiots), know they do not really want to know all this fiddly stuff like information, and facts, they just want it to "work".
They core market isn't interested in hacking OS X onto some crazy hardware.
They want to go to iTunes,  and buy all their "stuff" at the Apple Store.
So it makes sense to limit the functionality, at least from their perspective, as this is the market to which they serve.Anyway I am jk about the whole idiot thing, I just like stirring the pot... :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454</id>
	<title>Once again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259262540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.</p><p>Apple sells <strong>systems</strong>. In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware of an Atari, Apple, Amiga or Commodore computer.</p><p>The more you guys push to "free" Mac OS X, the more you guys risk of seeing the opposite laws being written, giving HP, Dell, Acer and others the ability to sign exclusive contracts with Microsoft. No more unlocked computers, no more OSS. Be very, very careful what you guys wish for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.Apple sells systems .
In the old days , nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware of an Atari , Apple , Amiga or Commodore computer.The more you guys push to " free " Mac OS X , the more you guys risk of seeing the opposite laws being written , giving HP , Dell , Acer and others the ability to sign exclusive contracts with Microsoft .
No more unlocked computers , no more OSS .
Be very , very careful what you guys wish for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.Apple sells systems.
In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware of an Atari, Apple, Amiga or Commodore computer.The more you guys push to "free" Mac OS X, the more you guys risk of seeing the opposite laws being written, giving HP, Dell, Acer and others the ability to sign exclusive contracts with Microsoft.
No more unlocked computers, no more OSS.
Be very, very careful what you guys wish for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239924</id>
	<title>Re:Why do companies keep doing this?</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1259232720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure why these smaller companies keep trying to take on the big boys, though, when they know they'll get crushed, like a nut.</p></div><p>Check out the <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091124092210278" title="groklaw.net">Groklaw article</a> [groklaw.net] on the case. It appears that getting sued by Apple was part of Psystar's business plan from the get-go. They actually marketed the idea to VC outfits as a reason to invest in the company.</p><p> What Psystar was more than anything else--certainly more than a computer manufacturer--was a case of investor fraud. Standby for shareholder lawsuits in 3...2...1...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why these smaller companies keep trying to take on the big boys , though , when they know they 'll get crushed , like a nut.Check out the Groklaw article [ groklaw.net ] on the case .
It appears that getting sued by Apple was part of Psystar 's business plan from the get-go .
They actually marketed the idea to VC outfits as a reason to invest in the company .
What Psystar was more than anything else--certainly more than a computer manufacturer--was a case of investor fraud .
Standby for shareholder lawsuits in 3...2...1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why these smaller companies keep trying to take on the big boys, though, when they know they'll get crushed, like a nut.Check out the Groklaw article [groklaw.net] on the case.
It appears that getting sued by Apple was part of Psystar's business plan from the get-go.
They actually marketed the idea to VC outfits as a reason to invest in the company.
What Psystar was more than anything else--certainly more than a computer manufacturer--was a case of investor fraud.
Standby for shareholder lawsuits in 3...2...1...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241970</id>
	<title>Re:A few reasons</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1259249940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog. Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple. They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's.</p></div><p>I don't purchase computers or operating systems based upon ideology.  I choose the best tool for the job, as do most consumers.</p><p>Microsoft has historically made a crappy product, while Apple's products over the past decade or so have been technically, ergonomically, and aesthetically superior (and even price-competitive, provided that you fit into the right "niche")</p><p>Sometimes I just can't bring myself to be worked up about copyright law.  Apple's done some bad things; Microsoft have done some bad things; RMS has done plenty that I disagree with.  I suppose that BSD can claim the greatest ideological "purity" as the license can be summarized as:</p><p>"Here's some code.  Do whatever the hell you want with it.  Just don't sue us, and include a copy of this message if you decide to redistribute"</p><p>In truth, the <a href="http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html" title="freebsd.org">actual license</a> [freebsd.org] isn't much longer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog .
Well , you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS , they like Apple .
They never bother to examine if Apple 's tactics are any better than MS 's.I do n't purchase computers or operating systems based upon ideology .
I choose the best tool for the job , as do most consumers.Microsoft has historically made a crappy product , while Apple 's products over the past decade or so have been technically , ergonomically , and aesthetically superior ( and even price-competitive , provided that you fit into the right " niche " ) Sometimes I just ca n't bring myself to be worked up about copyright law .
Apple 's done some bad things ; Microsoft have done some bad things ; RMS has done plenty that I disagree with .
I suppose that BSD can claim the greatest ideological " purity " as the license can be summarized as : " Here 's some code .
Do whatever the hell you want with it .
Just do n't sue us , and include a copy of this message if you decide to redistribute " In truth , the actual license [ freebsd.org ] is n't much longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog.
Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple.
They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's.I don't purchase computers or operating systems based upon ideology.
I choose the best tool for the job, as do most consumers.Microsoft has historically made a crappy product, while Apple's products over the past decade or so have been technically, ergonomically, and aesthetically superior (and even price-competitive, provided that you fit into the right "niche")Sometimes I just can't bring myself to be worked up about copyright law.
Apple's done some bad things; Microsoft have done some bad things; RMS has done plenty that I disagree with.
I suppose that BSD can claim the greatest ideological "purity" as the license can be summarized as:"Here's some code.
Do whatever the hell you want with it.
Just don't sue us, and include a copy of this message if you decide to redistribute"In truth, the actual license [freebsd.org] isn't much longer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239088</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>theurge14</author>
	<datestamp>1259267700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about getting software to work in those different ways, it's about changing it, repacking it and selling it on your own hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about getting software to work in those different ways , it 's about changing it , repacking it and selling it on your own hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about getting software to work in those different ways, it's about changing it, repacking it and selling it on your own hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238620</id>
	<title>You mean</title>
	<author>ArchieBunker</author>
	<datestamp>1259263740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238838</id>
	<title>Re:You mean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259265480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?</p></div><p>Too bad you don't legally own the software, only a licensee to it.  I don't like it any more than the next guy (unless the next guy is a software company, then they probably like it a lot) but that appears to be the way the law looks at software.  I guess that's what happens when you get legislation from people who don't understand what they are legislating.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own ? Too bad you do n't legally own the software , only a licensee to it .
I do n't like it any more than the next guy ( unless the next guy is a software company , then they probably like it a lot ) but that appears to be the way the law looks at software .
I guess that 's what happens when you get legislation from people who do n't understand what they are legislating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?Too bad you don't legally own the software, only a licensee to it.
I don't like it any more than the next guy (unless the next guy is a software company, then they probably like it a lot) but that appears to be the way the law looks at software.
I guess that's what happens when you get legislation from people who don't understand what they are legislating.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243828</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259317020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run</i></p><p>You don't know many PC OEMs then do you?  I can't take the version of Windows that came with my Gateway and install it on my HP, nor can I install the Windows that came with my HP on a Gateway, or any PC other than that HP.  Microsoft has PC OEMs create their own Windows install disk that only work on the PC it was made for.</p><p><i>
So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.</i></p><p>Apple is a hardware and a software company, that's why.  What is hard to understand about that?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it 's software will runYou do n't know many PC OEMs then do you ?
I ca n't take the version of Windows that came with my Gateway and install it on my HP , nor can I install the Windows that came with my HP on a Gateway , or any PC other than that HP .
Microsoft has PC OEMs create their own Windows install disk that only work on the PC it was made for .
So why are Apple special ?
If people are n't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running , why ca n't people do what they want ?
Every single other company works that way.Apple is a hardware and a software company , that 's why .
What is hard to understand about that ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will runYou don't know many PC OEMs then do you?
I can't take the version of Windows that came with my Gateway and install it on my HP, nor can I install the Windows that came with my HP on a Gateway, or any PC other than that HP.
Microsoft has PC OEMs create their own Windows install disk that only work on the PC it was made for.
So why are Apple special?
If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want?
Every single other company works that way.Apple is a hardware and a software company, that's why.
What is hard to understand about that?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241772</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>not-my-real-name</author>
	<datestamp>1259248020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Psystar had started with GnuStep (or OpenStep, or whatever it's called) and built a Mac OS X compatible OS, they would have probably been fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Psystar had started with GnuStep ( or OpenStep , or whatever it 's called ) and built a Mac OS X compatible OS , they would have probably been fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Psystar had started with GnuStep (or OpenStep, or whatever it's called) and built a Mac OS X compatible OS, they would have probably been fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30244416</id>
	<title>Re:Duh</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1259324940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The phrase you're looking for (in UK law) is the "Golden Rule." It's one of the methods of interpretation of law, alongside "Literal Rule" and "Mischief Rule". The Golden Rule looks at the strictest wording of the law as applied, and decides if it leads to an absurdity. If that is the case, it is within the power of the Judge to re-interpret the law along the lines of how Parliament would have expected it to be understood. Having a piece of shrink-wrap plastic around a DVD being the centrepoint of how this law is interpreted seems to me (non-lawyer) as an absurdity.<br> <br>Alternatively, the Mischief Rule allows a Judge to decide if an action sufficiently similar to the law in question, but not specifically covered by the law, is still a breach of that law. A man standing in a flower bed using a stick to steal car keys on a hook is not <i>technically</i> guilty of burglary (you must enter the property to commit a burglary). However, under the Mischief Rule the Judge can say that the tool was used under his control to commit the act, purely as a means of convenience, and say that without the stick the defendant would have to enter the property to perform the same action. Therefore stealing the keys from inside the property with the stick is still birglary. Same thing here; S/He can say that the EULA stipulation and firmware requirements are to prevent the use of the software on unsupported hardware which may affect the end user experience to the detriment of Apple's image. Therefore the technicalities listed as allowing Pystar to legally create their products do not apply.<br> <br>IANAL, blah blah. Opinion with a little knowledge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The phrase you 're looking for ( in UK law ) is the " Golden Rule .
" It 's one of the methods of interpretation of law , alongside " Literal Rule " and " Mischief Rule " .
The Golden Rule looks at the strictest wording of the law as applied , and decides if it leads to an absurdity .
If that is the case , it is within the power of the Judge to re-interpret the law along the lines of how Parliament would have expected it to be understood .
Having a piece of shrink-wrap plastic around a DVD being the centrepoint of how this law is interpreted seems to me ( non-lawyer ) as an absurdity .
Alternatively , the Mischief Rule allows a Judge to decide if an action sufficiently similar to the law in question , but not specifically covered by the law , is still a breach of that law .
A man standing in a flower bed using a stick to steal car keys on a hook is not technically guilty of burglary ( you must enter the property to commit a burglary ) .
However , under the Mischief Rule the Judge can say that the tool was used under his control to commit the act , purely as a means of convenience , and say that without the stick the defendant would have to enter the property to perform the same action .
Therefore stealing the keys from inside the property with the stick is still birglary .
Same thing here ; S/He can say that the EULA stipulation and firmware requirements are to prevent the use of the software on unsupported hardware which may affect the end user experience to the detriment of Apple 's image .
Therefore the technicalities listed as allowing Pystar to legally create their products do not apply .
IANAL , blah blah .
Opinion with a little knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phrase you're looking for (in UK law) is the "Golden Rule.
" It's one of the methods of interpretation of law, alongside "Literal Rule" and "Mischief Rule".
The Golden Rule looks at the strictest wording of the law as applied, and decides if it leads to an absurdity.
If that is the case, it is within the power of the Judge to re-interpret the law along the lines of how Parliament would have expected it to be understood.
Having a piece of shrink-wrap plastic around a DVD being the centrepoint of how this law is interpreted seems to me (non-lawyer) as an absurdity.
Alternatively, the Mischief Rule allows a Judge to decide if an action sufficiently similar to the law in question, but not specifically covered by the law, is still a breach of that law.
A man standing in a flower bed using a stick to steal car keys on a hook is not technically guilty of burglary (you must enter the property to commit a burglary).
However, under the Mischief Rule the Judge can say that the tool was used under his control to commit the act, purely as a means of convenience, and say that without the stick the defendant would have to enter the property to perform the same action.
Therefore stealing the keys from inside the property with the stick is still birglary.
Same thing here; S/He can say that the EULA stipulation and firmware requirements are to prevent the use of the software on unsupported hardware which may affect the end user experience to the detriment of Apple's image.
Therefore the technicalities listed as allowing Pystar to legally create their products do not apply.
IANAL, blah blah.
Opinion with a little knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238840</id>
	<title>Why do companies keep doing this?</title>
	<author>CohibaVancouver</author>
	<datestamp>1259265540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure why these smaller companies keep trying to take on the big boys, though, when they know they'll get crushed, like a nut.<br> <br>You've got Real thinking they can legally distribute software to rip DVDs to you hard drive, Psystar thinking they can legally create defacto Macs, Napster thinking they can facilitate file sharing and on and on....  Someone needs to sit down with these companies and explain how this crushing business works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why these smaller companies keep trying to take on the big boys , though , when they know they 'll get crushed , like a nut .
You 've got Real thinking they can legally distribute software to rip DVDs to you hard drive , Psystar thinking they can legally create defacto Macs , Napster thinking they can facilitate file sharing and on and on.... Someone needs to sit down with these companies and explain how this crushing business works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why these smaller companies keep trying to take on the big boys, though, when they know they'll get crushed, like a nut.
You've got Real thinking they can legally distribute software to rip DVDs to you hard drive, Psystar thinking they can legally create defacto Macs, Napster thinking they can facilitate file sharing and on and on....  Someone needs to sit down with these companies and explain how this crushing business works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238886</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259265900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So was it wrong when Compaq cloned the IBM BIOS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So was it wrong when Compaq cloned the IBM BIOS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So was it wrong when Compaq cloned the IBM BIOS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30247180</id>
	<title>Re:A few reasons</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259348880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog. Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple. They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's. It is a simple case of "I hate MS, these guys hate MS, so I like these guys."</i></p><p>You get anti-Apple geeks who make up any reason to justify their dislike for Apple.  They never examine their tactics to see if it's any better than Apple's.</p><p>Sound familiar?  Switch some words and presto.  Fact is is people like or use Macs because it does what they want without a lot of hassle.  Before switching from Windows to, first Linux then a Mac, I got sick and tired of all the hassles I had with bad hardware and software.  Since switching after using Windows 10 years, I have not had many problems with my setup in 3 years.  While I have had only one PC last more than a year without hardware problems and no PCs without software problems within a year, I have had Macs last years without problems, other than not being able to expand or upgrade them.</p><p><i>Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing, then they'll no longer be special. Despite their talk about OS-X being superior, the fanboys don't want everyone to have it because then they aren't special anymore, they are just normal.</i></p><p>I have repeatedly stated I want Apple to offer midrange expandable Macs for a lot less money than Mac Pros costs.  I've also said I'd like Apple to license OS X and allow clones.  However Apple did try <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac\_clones" title="wikipedia.org">Mac clones</a> [wikipedia.org], and lost money on them.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog .
Well , you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS , they like Apple .
They never bother to examine if Apple 's tactics are any better than MS 's .
It is a simple case of " I hate MS , these guys hate MS , so I like these guys .
" You get anti-Apple geeks who make up any reason to justify their dislike for Apple .
They never examine their tactics to see if it 's any better than Apple 's.Sound familiar ?
Switch some words and presto .
Fact is is people like or use Macs because it does what they want without a lot of hassle .
Before switching from Windows to , first Linux then a Mac , I got sick and tired of all the hassles I had with bad hardware and software .
Since switching after using Windows 10 years , I have not had many problems with my setup in 3 years .
While I have had only one PC last more than a year without hardware problems and no PCs without software problems within a year , I have had Macs last years without problems , other than not being able to expand or upgrade them.Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing , then they 'll no longer be special .
Despite their talk about OS-X being superior , the fanboys do n't want everyone to have it because then they are n't special anymore , they are just normal.I have repeatedly stated I want Apple to offer midrange expandable Macs for a lot less money than Mac Pros costs .
I 've also said I 'd like Apple to license OS X and allow clones .
However Apple did try Mac clones [ wikipedia.org ] , and lost money on them .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog.
Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple.
They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's.
It is a simple case of "I hate MS, these guys hate MS, so I like these guys.
"You get anti-Apple geeks who make up any reason to justify their dislike for Apple.
They never examine their tactics to see if it's any better than Apple's.Sound familiar?
Switch some words and presto.
Fact is is people like or use Macs because it does what they want without a lot of hassle.
Before switching from Windows to, first Linux then a Mac, I got sick and tired of all the hassles I had with bad hardware and software.
Since switching after using Windows 10 years, I have not had many problems with my setup in 3 years.
While I have had only one PC last more than a year without hardware problems and no PCs without software problems within a year, I have had Macs last years without problems, other than not being able to expand or upgrade them.Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing, then they'll no longer be special.
Despite their talk about OS-X being superior, the fanboys don't want everyone to have it because then they aren't special anymore, they are just normal.I have repeatedly stated I want Apple to offer midrange expandable Macs for a lot less money than Mac Pros costs.
I've also said I'd like Apple to license OS X and allow clones.
However Apple did try Mac clones [wikipedia.org], and lost money on them.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240314</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>derrickh</author>
	<datestamp>1259236020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Your car analogy is incomplete, and incorrect.<br>Instead imagine I buy a Ferrari engine, and put it into a Dodge Neon. Now this is entirely legal, and none of their business. The lawyers will only get involved when I start building these in bulk, and start a company to sell my new "Ferrari compatible" cars."</p><p>That happens all the time. In fact, many 'supercars' will use BMW or Mercedes engines. The Corvette's engine is in a number of 'third party' cars. Chip Foose's production car uses a Hemi engine from Chrysler.</p><p>And as far as I know, no one has been sued.</p><p>D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Your car analogy is incomplete , and incorrect.Instead imagine I buy a Ferrari engine , and put it into a Dodge Neon .
Now this is entirely legal , and none of their business .
The lawyers will only get involved when I start building these in bulk , and start a company to sell my new " Ferrari compatible " cars .
" That happens all the time .
In fact , many 'supercars ' will use BMW or Mercedes engines .
The Corvette 's engine is in a number of 'third party ' cars .
Chip Foose 's production car uses a Hemi engine from Chrysler.And as far as I know , no one has been sued.D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Your car analogy is incomplete, and incorrect.Instead imagine I buy a Ferrari engine, and put it into a Dodge Neon.
Now this is entirely legal, and none of their business.
The lawyers will only get involved when I start building these in bulk, and start a company to sell my new "Ferrari compatible" cars.
"That happens all the time.
In fact, many 'supercars' will use BMW or Mercedes engines.
The Corvette's engine is in a number of 'third party' cars.
Chip Foose's production car uses a Hemi engine from Chrysler.And as far as I know, no one has been sued.D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241014</id>
	<title>Apple needs to have a real desktop and not court t</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259241120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple needs to have a real desktop and not court to to sport psystar.</p><p>If they had a real desktop at $800-$1500 then psystar would be dead with out apple needing to go to court to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple needs to have a real desktop and not court to to sport psystar.If they had a real desktop at $ 800- $ 1500 then psystar would be dead with out apple needing to go to court to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple needs to have a real desktop and not court to to sport psystar.If they had a real desktop at $800-$1500 then psystar would be dead with out apple needing to go to court to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240172</id>
	<title>Perfect example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259234820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This perfectly illustrates the reason I REFUSE to buy an Apple computer. I will not be forced to buy a computer just for an OS. I build my own computers, and I refuse to give any money to a company that tries to dictate what I can and can't do with my machine. Why on earth should I spend $1600 on a decent iMac, when I can build an equivalent system for $800-900!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This perfectly illustrates the reason I REFUSE to buy an Apple computer .
I will not be forced to buy a computer just for an OS .
I build my own computers , and I refuse to give any money to a company that tries to dictate what I can and ca n't do with my machine .
Why on earth should I spend $ 1600 on a decent iMac , when I can build an equivalent system for $ 800-900 ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This perfectly illustrates the reason I REFUSE to buy an Apple computer.
I will not be forced to buy a computer just for an OS.
I build my own computers, and I refuse to give any money to a company that tries to dictate what I can and can't do with my machine.
Why on earth should I spend $1600 on a decent iMac, when I can build an equivalent system for $800-900!?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238754</id>
	<title>Re:You mean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259264760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't do whatever* I want with a piece of software I legally own?</p></div><p>* as long as "whatever" doesn't violate any state/local/federal laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't do whatever * I want with a piece of software I legally own ?
* as long as " whatever " does n't violate any state/local/federal laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't do whatever* I want with a piece of software I legally own?
* as long as "whatever" doesn't violate any state/local/federal laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243866</id>
	<title>Re:Duh</title>
	<author>Glorat</author>
	<datestamp>1259317500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is the difference though? Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.</p><p>What you're suggesting is insane. The only difference is having to install everything manually on every computer, or just cloning the same bits and bytes. What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?</p></div><p>This very argument was tackled by Apple. The point is that Psystar made an illegal modified master copy, which they then went on to clone onto all their PCs. The difference is that Dell were entitled to make master copies since they had a licence from Apple to do so. IMO, it's somewhat analagous to taking a Windows install, sticking a pirate key on it, then cloning it to 1000 PCs. That you've then also provided a retail Windows package doesn't help you escape.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The law should not be stupid, but be interpreted according to common sense. If this is how it is, either this broken legal system needs further fixes, or we just need to stay away from proprietary software altogether - too much risk and arbitrary decisions in the hands of the wrong people..</p></div><p>The law is verbose, like a good computer program so that there is less ambiguity about what people think is common sense. Agree that sticking to FOSS will get you in less trouble</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the difference though ?
Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.What you 're suggesting is insane .
The only difference is having to install everything manually on every computer , or just cloning the same bits and bytes .
What 's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money ? This very argument was tackled by Apple .
The point is that Psystar made an illegal modified master copy , which they then went on to clone onto all their PCs .
The difference is that Dell were entitled to make master copies since they had a licence from Apple to do so .
IMO , it 's somewhat analagous to taking a Windows install , sticking a pirate key on it , then cloning it to 1000 PCs .
That you 've then also provided a retail Windows package does n't help you escape.The law should not be stupid , but be interpreted according to common sense .
If this is how it is , either this broken legal system needs further fixes , or we just need to stay away from proprietary software altogether - too much risk and arbitrary decisions in the hands of the wrong people..The law is verbose , like a good computer program so that there is less ambiguity about what people think is common sense .
Agree that sticking to FOSS will get you in less trouble</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the difference though?
Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.What you're suggesting is insane.
The only difference is having to install everything manually on every computer, or just cloning the same bits and bytes.
What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?This very argument was tackled by Apple.
The point is that Psystar made an illegal modified master copy, which they then went on to clone onto all their PCs.
The difference is that Dell were entitled to make master copies since they had a licence from Apple to do so.
IMO, it's somewhat analagous to taking a Windows install, sticking a pirate key on it, then cloning it to 1000 PCs.
That you've then also provided a retail Windows package doesn't help you escape.The law should not be stupid, but be interpreted according to common sense.
If this is how it is, either this broken legal system needs further fixes, or we just need to stay away from proprietary software altogether - too much risk and arbitrary decisions in the hands of the wrong people..The law is verbose, like a good computer program so that there is less ambiguity about what people think is common sense.
Agree that sticking to FOSS will get you in less trouble
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238894</id>
	<title>Re:You mean</title>
	<author>Traa</author>
	<datestamp>1259265960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can do whatever you want with software you legally own.</p><p>Problem is, there isn't much (or any?) software you legally own. You don't own the Windows install on your comp, or the OS X or even Linux versions. You have "licenses" to use those (even Linux) for particular means. And those licenses refer to legislation and other stuff (DMCA, patents, copyright law,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) restricting your use even further.</p><p>Of course it didn't start or stop with SW. Big chunks of the music and movie industry have fought for years to prevent the "free" use of material through *cough* creative licenses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can do whatever you want with software you legally own.Problem is , there is n't much ( or any ?
) software you legally own .
You do n't own the Windows install on your comp , or the OS X or even Linux versions .
You have " licenses " to use those ( even Linux ) for particular means .
And those licenses refer to legislation and other stuff ( DMCA , patents , copyright law , ... ) restricting your use even further.Of course it did n't start or stop with SW. Big chunks of the music and movie industry have fought for years to prevent the " free " use of material through * cough * creative licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can do whatever you want with software you legally own.Problem is, there isn't much (or any?
) software you legally own.
You don't own the Windows install on your comp, or the OS X or even Linux versions.
You have "licenses" to use those (even Linux) for particular means.
And those licenses refer to legislation and other stuff (DMCA, patents, copyright law, ...) restricting your use even further.Of course it didn't start or stop with SW. Big chunks of the music and movie industry have fought for years to prevent the "free" use of material through *cough* creative licenses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30248042</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is very special</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259353980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I hereby declare I will never ever buy anything from Apple again, for me, or even encourage anybody to buy something from them.</i></p><p>After using Windows PCs for years I bought a Mac because Apple offered me something I was willing to pay for.  If they don't offer you what you want then don't buy from them.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hereby declare I will never ever buy anything from Apple again , for me , or even encourage anybody to buy something from them.After using Windows PCs for years I bought a Mac because Apple offered me something I was willing to pay for .
If they do n't offer you what you want then do n't buy from them .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hereby declare I will never ever buy anything from Apple again, for me, or even encourage anybody to buy something from them.After using Windows PCs for years I bought a Mac because Apple offered me something I was willing to pay for.
If they don't offer you what you want then don't buy from them.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239006</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259266920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.</i></p><p>Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?</p><p>Has Microsoft tried to sue WINE for allowing and encouraging Linux users to run MS Office under linux? Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME? You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.</p><p>Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run. All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.</p><p>So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.</p></div><p>Wrong wrong and wrong again.</p><p>Can you play Xbox 360 discs on your PC? Can you play PS3 games on your PC? What about Wii? Oh, you mean, they only want you to run the software on their hardware? Right. So, by your logic, if someone sets up a company to sell kit that lets you play Xbox discs on a PC Microsoft will be cool with that? Riiiiight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.Out of interest where does , Microsoft Windows , Dos , Ubuntu , Photoshop , Autocad , Proteus , MS Office , Skype , All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture ? Has Microsoft tried to sue WINE for allowing and encouraging Linux users to run MS Office under linux ?
Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME ?
You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB 's of ram , MS wo n't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it 's software will run .
All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on ( and will be supported on ) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.So why are Apple special ?
If people are n't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running , why ca n't people do what they want ?
Every single other company works that way.Wrong wrong and wrong again.Can you play Xbox 360 discs on your PC ?
Can you play PS3 games on your PC ?
What about Wii ?
Oh , you mean , they only want you to run the software on their hardware ?
Right. So , by your logic , if someone sets up a company to sell kit that lets you play Xbox discs on a PC Microsoft will be cool with that ?
Riiiiight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?Has Microsoft tried to sue WINE for allowing and encouraging Linux users to run MS Office under linux?
Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME?
You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run.
All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.So why are Apple special?
If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want?
Every single other company works that way.Wrong wrong and wrong again.Can you play Xbox 360 discs on your PC?
Can you play PS3 games on your PC?
What about Wii?
Oh, you mean, they only want you to run the software on their hardware?
Right. So, by your logic, if someone sets up a company to sell kit that lets you play Xbox discs on a PC Microsoft will be cool with that?
Riiiiight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239818</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1259231460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market.

Or IBM OS/360. Or Palm WebOS. Or...</i>
</p><p>
Fujitsu. They even design their own <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC64\_VI" title="wikipedia.org">SPARC CPUs</a> [wikipedia.org] which are better performing than Sun's. In fact, Sun has done such a craptastic job designing UltraSPARC V and Rock, that they have to sell high-end servers using Fujitsu's processors to be able to compete. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl" title="wikipedia.org">Amdahl Corporation</a> [wikipedia.org] manufactures IBM S/360 hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that does n't involve Sun Microsystems and let 's see how long you do in the market .
Or IBM OS/360 .
Or Palm WebOS .
Or.. . Fujitsu .
They even design their own SPARC CPUs [ wikipedia.org ] which are better performing than Sun 's .
In fact , Sun has done such a craptastic job designing UltraSPARC V and Rock , that they have to sell high-end servers using Fujitsu 's processors to be able to compete .
Amdahl Corporation [ wikipedia.org ] manufactures IBM S/360 hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market.
Or IBM OS/360.
Or Palm WebOS.
Or...

Fujitsu.
They even design their own SPARC CPUs [wikipedia.org] which are better performing than Sun's.
In fact, Sun has done such a craptastic job designing UltraSPARC V and Rock, that they have to sell high-end servers using Fujitsu's processors to be able to compete.
Amdahl Corporation [wikipedia.org] manufactures IBM S/360 hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240524</id>
	<title>Should've stayed with another architecture then...</title>
	<author>Hamsterdan</author>
	<datestamp>1259237580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in the PPC days, you couldn't install OS X on anything else than a MAC (excluding licensed UMAX and MOTOROLA machines). The day Steve went X86, you just knew installing OS X on a PC would be possible (same hardware)<br><br>Heck, I'm typing this on 10.5.8 running on an AMD Athlon X2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br><br>If you buy a standard PC with similar hardware, it's quite easy to run OS X on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the PPC days , you could n't install OS X on anything else than a MAC ( excluding licensed UMAX and MOTOROLA machines ) .
The day Steve went X86 , you just knew installing OS X on a PC would be possible ( same hardware ) Heck , I 'm typing this on 10.5.8 running on an AMD Athlon X2 : ) If you buy a standard PC with similar hardware , it 's quite easy to run OS X on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the PPC days, you couldn't install OS X on anything else than a MAC (excluding licensed UMAX and MOTOROLA machines).
The day Steve went X86, you just knew installing OS X on a PC would be possible (same hardware)Heck, I'm typing this on 10.5.8 running on an AMD Athlon X2 :)If you buy a standard PC with similar hardware, it's quite easy to run OS X on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259264400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.</i>
<br> <br>
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?<br> <br>
Has Microsoft tried to sue WINE for allowing and encouraging Linux users to run MS Office under linux? Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME? You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.<br> <br>
Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run. All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements. <br> <br>
So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want .
Out of interest where does , Microsoft Windows , Dos , Ubuntu , Photoshop , Autocad , Proteus , MS Office , Skype , All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture ?
Has Microsoft tried to sue WINE for allowing and encouraging Linux users to run MS Office under linux ?
Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME ?
You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB 's of ram , MS wo n't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration .
Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it 's software will run .
All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on ( and will be supported on ) and what they believe are the minimum requirements .
So why are Apple special ?
If people are n't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running , why ca n't people do what they want ?
Every single other company works that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?
Has Microsoft tried to sue WINE for allowing and encouraging Linux users to run MS Office under linux?
Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME?
You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.
Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run.
All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.
So why are Apple special?
If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want?
Every single other company works that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239766</id>
	<title>Apple is ..</title>
	<author>kuzb</author>
	<datestamp>1259230920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. evil.  This is nothing new.  They've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.</p><p>It's hard for a lot of us to accept, because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy (I own several myself), but the truth is Apple is evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. evil. This is nothing new .
They 've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.It 's hard for a lot of us to accept , because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy ( I own several myself ) , but the truth is Apple is evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. evil.  This is nothing new.
They've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.It's hard for a lot of us to accept, because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy (I own several myself), but the truth is Apple is evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1259264160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.  What I do with my property after I've legally purchased it is MY FUCKING BUSINESS.  Their opinions about what I should and shouldn't do with my property shouldn't be legal obligations.  They manufactured it, I bought it, it's mine.  If I want to put the engine from my Ford into a Dodge, that's my business, and Ford shouldn't be able to stop me because they feel it's inconsistent with their marketing strategies or because they'd rather I bought another complete car.</p><p>I'll cede that copying their OS and redistributing it would be a bogus thing to do, but that's it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
What I do with my property after I 've legally purchased it is MY FUCKING BUSINESS .
Their opinions about what I should and should n't do with my property should n't be legal obligations .
They manufactured it , I bought it , it 's mine .
If I want to put the engine from my Ford into a Dodge , that 's my business , and Ford should n't be able to stop me because they feel it 's inconsistent with their marketing strategies or because they 'd rather I bought another complete car.I 'll cede that copying their OS and redistributing it would be a bogus thing to do , but that 's it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
What I do with my property after I've legally purchased it is MY FUCKING BUSINESS.
Their opinions about what I should and shouldn't do with my property shouldn't be legal obligations.
They manufactured it, I bought it, it's mine.
If I want to put the engine from my Ford into a Dodge, that's my business, and Ford shouldn't be able to stop me because they feel it's inconsistent with their marketing strategies or because they'd rather I bought another complete car.I'll cede that copying their OS and redistributing it would be a bogus thing to do, but that's it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238948</id>
	<title>Re:The way I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259266380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your car analogy is incomplete, and incorrect.<br>
Instead imagine I buy a Ferrari engine, and put it into a Dodge Neon. Now this is entirely legal, and none of their business. The lawyers will only get involved when I start building these in bulk, and start a company to sell my new "Ferrari compatible" cars.<br>
<br>
Still not perfect, but a lot closer than the original.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your car analogy is incomplete , and incorrect .
Instead imagine I buy a Ferrari engine , and put it into a Dodge Neon .
Now this is entirely legal , and none of their business .
The lawyers will only get involved when I start building these in bulk , and start a company to sell my new " Ferrari compatible " cars .
Still not perfect , but a lot closer than the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your car analogy is incomplete, and incorrect.
Instead imagine I buy a Ferrari engine, and put it into a Dodge Neon.
Now this is entirely legal, and none of their business.
The lawyers will only get involved when I start building these in bulk, and start a company to sell my new "Ferrari compatible" cars.
Still not perfect, but a lot closer than the original.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240044</id>
	<title>Re:Format shifting</title>
	<author>Retardical\_Sam</author>
	<datestamp>1259233620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The core difference is between you buying a CD and putting it on your iPod when the record label says you can't, and someone else selling you an iPod with that CD on it, along with a copy of the CD.  One is <i>morally</i> home and personal use, the other is business, and an attempt at a profit.  To me, that's the big difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The core difference is between you buying a CD and putting it on your iPod when the record label says you ca n't , and someone else selling you an iPod with that CD on it , along with a copy of the CD .
One is morally home and personal use , the other is business , and an attempt at a profit .
To me , that 's the big difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The core difference is between you buying a CD and putting it on your iPod when the record label says you can't, and someone else selling you an iPod with that CD on it, along with a copy of the CD.
One is morally home and personal use, the other is business, and an attempt at a profit.
To me, that's the big difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240202</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>CyberLife</author>
	<datestamp>1259235120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run.</p></div><p>Ever heard of Sony or Nintendo? Last I checked, PS3 and Wii discs were not readable on a PC -- technological measures and all that. In addition, their respective software licenses specifically forbid any copying whatsoever, a step required if one is going to use the titles on anything other than the intended hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it 's software will run.Ever heard of Sony or Nintendo ?
Last I checked , PS3 and Wii discs were not readable on a PC -- technological measures and all that .
In addition , their respective software licenses specifically forbid any copying whatsoever , a step required if one is going to use the titles on anything other than the intended hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run.Ever heard of Sony or Nintendo?
Last I checked, PS3 and Wii discs were not readable on a PC -- technological measures and all that.
In addition, their respective software licenses specifically forbid any copying whatsoever, a step required if one is going to use the titles on anything other than the intended hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239686</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>Amarantine</author>
	<datestamp>1259230260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME? You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.</p></div><p>Because MS doesn't sell machines themselves, while Apple does.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run. All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.</p></div><p>Of course they do, again, Apple sells hardware+software bundles. Apple's business is selling hardware. Of course they want their software running on their own hardware. It is their business model.<br> <br>Besides, there actually are companies who restrict what their software will run on. I'm pretty sure an Xbox game does not run on a PS3. I know they are totally incompatible on many levels, but if they were compatible, you'd have the same discussion.<br> <br>Just because something is *technically* possible, does NOT mean it is legal, or should be.<br> <br>
If i decide to build some kind of highly specialised medical software, and decide to bundle it exclusively on x86-hardware i sell with my own label, just for performance assurance, does that mean somebody else can tear it apart and re-sell my software on their own systems?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME ?
You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB 's of ram , MS wo n't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.Because MS does n't sell machines themselves , while Apple does.Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it 's software will run .
All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on ( and will be supported on ) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.Of course they do , again , Apple sells hardware + software bundles .
Apple 's business is selling hardware .
Of course they want their software running on their own hardware .
It is their business model .
Besides , there actually are companies who restrict what their software will run on .
I 'm pretty sure an Xbox game does not run on a PS3 .
I know they are totally incompatible on many levels , but if they were compatible , you 'd have the same discussion .
Just because something is * technically * possible , does NOT mean it is legal , or should be .
If i decide to build some kind of highly specialised medical software , and decide to bundle it exclusively on x86-hardware i sell with my own label , just for performance assurance , does that mean somebody else can tear it apart and re-sell my software on their own systems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME?
You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.Because MS doesn't sell machines themselves, while Apple does.Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run.
All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.Of course they do, again, Apple sells hardware+software bundles.
Apple's business is selling hardware.
Of course they want their software running on their own hardware.
It is their business model.
Besides, there actually are companies who restrict what their software will run on.
I'm pretty sure an Xbox game does not run on a PS3.
I know they are totally incompatible on many levels, but if they were compatible, you'd have the same discussion.
Just because something is *technically* possible, does NOT mean it is legal, or should be.
If i decide to build some kind of highly specialised medical software, and decide to bundle it exclusively on x86-hardware i sell with my own label, just for performance assurance, does that mean somebody else can tear it apart and re-sell my software on their own systems?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238950</id>
	<title>Re:Once again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259266440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market.</p><p>Or IBM OS/360.  Or Palm WebOS.  Or...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that does n't involve Sun Microsystems and let 's see how long you do in the market.Or IBM OS/360 .
Or Palm WebOS .
Or.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market.Or IBM OS/360.
Or Palm WebOS.
Or...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243140</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259264760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>.. evil. This is nothing new. They've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.</i></p><p><i>It's hard for a lot of us to accept, because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy (I own several myself), but the truth is Apple is evil.</i></p><p>Would you rather be able to buy Apple products or not?  Nobody has yet proven Apple can survive if they allowed OS X to run on any PC, but they did lose money when they licensed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac\_clones" title="wikipedia.org">Mac clones</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. evil. This is nothing new .
They 've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.It 's hard for a lot of us to accept , because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy ( I own several myself ) , but the truth is Apple is evil.Would you rather be able to buy Apple products or not ?
Nobody has yet proven Apple can survive if they allowed OS X to run on any PC , but they did lose money when they licensed Mac clones [ wikipedia.org ] .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. evil. This is nothing new.
They've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.It's hard for a lot of us to accept, because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy (I own several myself), but the truth is Apple is evil.Would you rather be able to buy Apple products or not?
Nobody has yet proven Apple can survive if they allowed OS X to run on any PC, but they did lose money when they licensed Mac clones [wikipedia.org].
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239766</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30248000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30244306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30242860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30244416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30247314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30247180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30248042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30242536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30244800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30245004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30242534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_26_1728243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238948
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30244800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30242536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30244416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30247314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30245004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30240202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239170
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239406
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30248042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239044
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241312
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30242860
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30247180
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30241970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30244306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238950
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30238596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30242534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_26_1728243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30239766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30243140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_26_1728243.30248000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
