<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_12_0316258</id>
	<title>Documentation Compliance Means MS Can Resume Collecting Protocol Royalties</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260637020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"Microsoft may <a href="http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/329234">begin collecting royalties again for licensing some protocols</a> because clear technical documentation is now available, according to the US Department of Justice. The change comes after the DOJ issued its <a href="http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f252800/252874.htm">latest joint status report</a> regarding its 2002 antitrust settlement with Microsoft. The settlement required Microsoft to make available technical documentation that would allow other vendors to make products that are interoperable with Windows."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " Microsoft may begin collecting royalties again for licensing some protocols because clear technical documentation is now available , according to the US Department of Justice .
The change comes after the DOJ issued its latest joint status report regarding its 2002 antitrust settlement with Microsoft .
The settlement required Microsoft to make available technical documentation that would allow other vendors to make products that are interoperable with Windows .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "Microsoft may begin collecting royalties again for licensing some protocols because clear technical documentation is now available, according to the US Department of Justice.
The change comes after the DOJ issued its latest joint status report regarding its 2002 antitrust settlement with Microsoft.
The settlement required Microsoft to make available technical documentation that would allow other vendors to make products that are interoperable with Windows.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412820</id>
	<title>mod 3o3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260621900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>POOR PRIORITIES, there are some not Bgoing to play in ratio of 5 to the future holds OpenBSD leader Theo empire in decline,</htmltext>
<tokenext>POOR PRIORITIES , there are some not Bgoing to play in ratio of 5 to the future holds OpenBSD leader Theo empire in decline,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>POOR PRIORITIES, there are some not Bgoing to play in ratio of 5 to the future holds OpenBSD leader Theo empire in decline,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411120</id>
	<title>protocols</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1260554220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when protocols are something you can license? They're pretty much available for everyone, technical details available or not. Protocols really shouldn't be limited by licenses.</p><p>However on another case, <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/14/2313247" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Blizzard has</a> [slashdot.org] been fighting <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/01/146228" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">such too</a> [slashdot.org] against cheaters on their games.</p><p>But really, what law do you violate if you're using a "licensed" protocol? I haven't heard of such cases before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when protocols are something you can license ?
They 're pretty much available for everyone , technical details available or not .
Protocols really should n't be limited by licenses.However on another case , Blizzard has [ slashdot.org ] been fighting such too [ slashdot.org ] against cheaters on their games.But really , what law do you violate if you 're using a " licensed " protocol ?
I have n't heard of such cases before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when protocols are something you can license?
They're pretty much available for everyone, technical details available or not.
Protocols really shouldn't be limited by licenses.However on another case, Blizzard has [slashdot.org] been fighting such too [slashdot.org] against cheaters on their games.But really, what law do you violate if you're using a "licensed" protocol?
I haven't heard of such cases before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411350</id>
	<title>Charge them for speaking english</title>
	<author>L0stm4n</author>
	<datestamp>1260556620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean they didn't invent it. Their using of this critical interoperability protocol without payment to the inventors is ludicrous.</p><p>just my 2 cents ( paid in full to the anglo-saxons )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean they did n't invent it .
Their using of this critical interoperability protocol without payment to the inventors is ludicrous.just my 2 cents ( paid in full to the anglo-saxons )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean they didn't invent it.
Their using of this critical interoperability protocol without payment to the inventors is ludicrous.just my 2 cents ( paid in full to the anglo-saxons )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413154</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1260625800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't about software, this is about a specification, and they can charge money for anyone who implements the specification, clean room or otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about software , this is about a specification , and they can charge money for anyone who implements the specification , clean room or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about software, this is about a specification, and they can charge money for anyone who implements the specification, clean room or otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412544</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>fyrewulff</author>
	<datestamp>1260618480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recipes cannot be copyrighted, although the instructions can be.<br>You can also patent the machines that put together your item, which would also document exactly how to replicate it.</p><p>Basically companies that have a 'secret recipe' are taking a risk-reward gamble.<br>If you can keep it a secret, you don't have to patent it. Patenting would protect it, but it would "start the clock" so to speak. The patent would eventually expire and the documentation would be there plain as day.</p><p>The big companies rely on people thinking it's secret and not replicable. KFC's recipe has been known for a long time - KFC even ran ads last year show people collecting ingredients to make KFC chicken but were making a point that it would be cheaper to buy from KFC.</p><p>Coca Cola's recipe status I am not sure of but it would not be too hard to replicate. However Coca-Cola has some benefits: the only company that is a threat to them financially (Pepsi) would have no use for the Coca-Cola recipe because Pepsi has built their empire off selling Pepsi, not Coca-Cola. In fact, Pepsi and CC bottle each other's sodas in many locations to save money! In the same respect, CC has no use for the Pepsi formula.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recipes can not be copyrighted , although the instructions can be.You can also patent the machines that put together your item , which would also document exactly how to replicate it.Basically companies that have a 'secret recipe ' are taking a risk-reward gamble.If you can keep it a secret , you do n't have to patent it .
Patenting would protect it , but it would " start the clock " so to speak .
The patent would eventually expire and the documentation would be there plain as day.The big companies rely on people thinking it 's secret and not replicable .
KFC 's recipe has been known for a long time - KFC even ran ads last year show people collecting ingredients to make KFC chicken but were making a point that it would be cheaper to buy from KFC.Coca Cola 's recipe status I am not sure of but it would not be too hard to replicate .
However Coca-Cola has some benefits : the only company that is a threat to them financially ( Pepsi ) would have no use for the Coca-Cola recipe because Pepsi has built their empire off selling Pepsi , not Coca-Cola .
In fact , Pepsi and CC bottle each other 's sodas in many locations to save money !
In the same respect , CC has no use for the Pepsi formula .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recipes cannot be copyrighted, although the instructions can be.You can also patent the machines that put together your item, which would also document exactly how to replicate it.Basically companies that have a 'secret recipe' are taking a risk-reward gamble.If you can keep it a secret, you don't have to patent it.
Patenting would protect it, but it would "start the clock" so to speak.
The patent would eventually expire and the documentation would be there plain as day.The big companies rely on people thinking it's secret and not replicable.
KFC's recipe has been known for a long time - KFC even ran ads last year show people collecting ingredients to make KFC chicken but were making a point that it would be cheaper to buy from KFC.Coca Cola's recipe status I am not sure of but it would not be too hard to replicate.
However Coca-Cola has some benefits: the only company that is a threat to them financially (Pepsi) would have no use for the Coca-Cola recipe because Pepsi has built their empire off selling Pepsi, not Coca-Cola.
In fact, Pepsi and CC bottle each other's sodas in many locations to save money!
In the same respect, CC has no use for the Pepsi formula.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411836</id>
	<title>Did Microsoft made yet another mistake?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260649440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols. Microsoft then does what the government asks. Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked.</p><p>Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake. Wasn't this what they asked Microsoft to do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols .
Microsoft then does what the government asks .
Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked.Somehow , the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake .
Was n't this what they asked Microsoft to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols.
Microsoft then does what the government asks.
Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked.Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake.
Wasn't this what they asked Microsoft to do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116</id>
	<title>Outrageous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260554220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is outrageous, and I have two examples why.

First, protocols are like food recipes. The pizza you sell is yours, but the ingredients to make it is not. Here the protocol is your ham, pineapple, salami and shrimps on a barbeque sauce large size pan pizza. You have not stolen the app from your competitor, you're just making yours compatible with theirs. Like the third party IM clients can connect to MSN network.

Secondly, how would any of those open source apps pay for the royalties? But maybe this is Microsoft's plan.

Let me tell you what is happening here. Microsoft is paying for the local BBQ Sauce factory to include a license agreement before you can use their sauce in your pizzas. The license agreement says you are only allowed to use their BBQ sauce on Microsoft approved pizzas. And before you know, these pizzas will be degraded. Forget your ham, forget your pineapples, forget you bacon and forget your cheese. THIS is the pizza we offer, and this will be the pizza you like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is outrageous , and I have two examples why .
First , protocols are like food recipes .
The pizza you sell is yours , but the ingredients to make it is not .
Here the protocol is your ham , pineapple , salami and shrimps on a barbeque sauce large size pan pizza .
You have not stolen the app from your competitor , you 're just making yours compatible with theirs .
Like the third party IM clients can connect to MSN network .
Secondly , how would any of those open source apps pay for the royalties ?
But maybe this is Microsoft 's plan .
Let me tell you what is happening here .
Microsoft is paying for the local BBQ Sauce factory to include a license agreement before you can use their sauce in your pizzas .
The license agreement says you are only allowed to use their BBQ sauce on Microsoft approved pizzas .
And before you know , these pizzas will be degraded .
Forget your ham , forget your pineapples , forget you bacon and forget your cheese .
THIS is the pizza we offer , and this will be the pizza you like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is outrageous, and I have two examples why.
First, protocols are like food recipes.
The pizza you sell is yours, but the ingredients to make it is not.
Here the protocol is your ham, pineapple, salami and shrimps on a barbeque sauce large size pan pizza.
You have not stolen the app from your competitor, you're just making yours compatible with theirs.
Like the third party IM clients can connect to MSN network.
Secondly, how would any of those open source apps pay for the royalties?
But maybe this is Microsoft's plan.
Let me tell you what is happening here.
Microsoft is paying for the local BBQ Sauce factory to include a license agreement before you can use their sauce in your pizzas.
The license agreement says you are only allowed to use their BBQ sauce on Microsoft approved pizzas.
And before you know, these pizzas will be degraded.
Forget your ham, forget your pineapples, forget you bacon and forget your cheese.
THIS is the pizza we offer, and this will be the pizza you like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413584</id>
	<title>Microsoft undocumentation :)</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1260630480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols. Microsoft then does what the government asks. Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked. Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake. Wasn't this what they asked Microsoft to do?</i> <br> <br>

No, they were asked to open the specs not, after much delay, publish a mishmash of source code and API calls and then charge other compamies to connect their computers to their-own customers computers. What's difficult about producing an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request\_for\_Comments" title="wikipedia.org">RFC</a> [wikipedia.org]. No doubt this <a href="http://www.sonic.net/~undoc/comes\_v\_microsoft/Supp\_Rpt\_Andrew\_Schulman.pdf" title="sonic.net">undocumentation</a> [sonic.net] will be as deliveratly obscure as their previous efforts in that department<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols .
Microsoft then does what the government asks .
Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked .
Somehow , the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake .
Was n't this what they asked Microsoft to do ?
No , they were asked to open the specs not , after much delay , publish a mishmash of source code and API calls and then charge other compamies to connect their computers to their-own customers computers .
What 's difficult about producing an RFC [ wikipedia.org ] .
No doubt this undocumentation [ sonic.net ] will be as deliveratly obscure as their previous efforts in that department .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols.
Microsoft then does what the government asks.
Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked.
Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake.
Wasn't this what they asked Microsoft to do?
No, they were asked to open the specs not, after much delay, publish a mishmash of source code and API calls and then charge other compamies to connect their computers to their-own customers computers.
What's difficult about producing an RFC [wikipedia.org].
No doubt this undocumentation [sonic.net] will be as deliveratly obscure as their previous efforts in that department ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411232</id>
	<title>hey now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260555600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>stop with the Borg Bill Gates avatar. It's so 90's!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>stop with the Borg Bill Gates avatar .
It 's so 90 's !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stop with the Borg Bill Gates avatar.
It's so 90's!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412236</id>
	<title>Trade barriers</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1260614340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice, another trade barrier. You can't use this protocol unless you pay $x. At least, if you live in the USA. If you live in a country where interoperability is a right, you now have documentation to help you attain it. If you live in a country where the $x barrier to entry doesn't exist or isn't enforced, you can now make your product $x cheaper than your competitors in the USA.</p><p>Interoperability: brought to you by the European Union and the People's Republic of China while companies in the USA fought expensive legal battles over chump change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice , another trade barrier .
You ca n't use this protocol unless you pay $ x .
At least , if you live in the USA .
If you live in a country where interoperability is a right , you now have documentation to help you attain it .
If you live in a country where the $ x barrier to entry does n't exist or is n't enforced , you can now make your product $ x cheaper than your competitors in the USA.Interoperability : brought to you by the European Union and the People 's Republic of China while companies in the USA fought expensive legal battles over chump change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice, another trade barrier.
You can't use this protocol unless you pay $x.
At least, if you live in the USA.
If you live in a country where interoperability is a right, you now have documentation to help you attain it.
If you live in a country where the $x barrier to entry doesn't exist or isn't enforced, you can now make your product $x cheaper than your competitors in the USA.Interoperability: brought to you by the European Union and the People's Republic of China while companies in the USA fought expensive legal battles over chump change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411372</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1260556740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but a food recipe can easily be reverse engineered and used for profit or given away. If I magically figured out KFC's recipe without having prior knowledge of it and I made my own fried chicken stand that drove KFC out of business there wouldn't be a thing KFC could do. Similarly, I could reverse engineer coke and make my own soda. About the only thing that you -can't- do with a trade secret is if you know it most agreements forbid you from disclosing it or competing using it. <br> <br>

As for copyright, yeah, you can copyright anything, but I can still use your work, just not publish the recipe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but a food recipe can easily be reverse engineered and used for profit or given away .
If I magically figured out KFC 's recipe without having prior knowledge of it and I made my own fried chicken stand that drove KFC out of business there would n't be a thing KFC could do .
Similarly , I could reverse engineer coke and make my own soda .
About the only thing that you -ca n't- do with a trade secret is if you know it most agreements forbid you from disclosing it or competing using it .
As for copyright , yeah , you can copyright anything , but I can still use your work , just not publish the recipe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but a food recipe can easily be reverse engineered and used for profit or given away.
If I magically figured out KFC's recipe without having prior knowledge of it and I made my own fried chicken stand that drove KFC out of business there wouldn't be a thing KFC could do.
Similarly, I could reverse engineer coke and make my own soda.
About the only thing that you -can't- do with a trade secret is if you know it most agreements forbid you from disclosing it or competing using it.
As for copyright, yeah, you can copyright anything, but I can still use your work, just not publish the recipe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413242</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>MeNeXT</author>
	<datestamp>1260626880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No problem here but a monopoly should not be allowed to bundle products either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No problem here but a monopoly should not be allowed to bundle products either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No problem here but a monopoly should not be allowed to bundle products either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412814</id>
	<title>Re:Congratulations!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260621840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woah, looks like Ballmer wrote a movie!  <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Flying-Chair-Around-World/dp/B000SBKENO" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">The Amazing Flying Chair</a> [amazon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woah , looks like Ballmer wrote a movie !
The Amazing Flying Chair [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woah, looks like Ballmer wrote a movie!
The Amazing Flying Chair [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413660</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1260631020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot that KFCs secret recipe is protected in order to keep them competitive against their, uh, competitors. Microsoft forfeited that right when they stopped having competitors, that's why the DoJ got involved in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot that KFCs secret recipe is protected in order to keep them competitive against their , uh , competitors .
Microsoft forfeited that right when they stopped having competitors , that 's why the DoJ got involved in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot that KFCs secret recipe is protected in order to keep them competitive against their, uh, competitors.
Microsoft forfeited that right when they stopped having competitors, that's why the DoJ got involved in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411306</id>
	<title>Re:protocols</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260556140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>protocol design is a difficult and important process. by designing a protocol for something that performs better than existing ones, you can gain competitive advantage. if this advantage then disappears because everybody else can just copy the results of your hard work, i'm pretty sure anybody would be pissed. IANAL, but it seems to me that a company should be allowed to make money from their own work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>protocol design is a difficult and important process .
by designing a protocol for something that performs better than existing ones , you can gain competitive advantage .
if this advantage then disappears because everybody else can just copy the results of your hard work , i 'm pretty sure anybody would be pissed .
IANAL , but it seems to me that a company should be allowed to make money from their own work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>protocol design is a difficult and important process.
by designing a protocol for something that performs better than existing ones, you can gain competitive advantage.
if this advantage then disappears because everybody else can just copy the results of your hard work, i'm pretty sure anybody would be pissed.
IANAL, but it seems to me that a company should be allowed to make money from their own work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411810</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1260649080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The license agreement says you are only allowed to use their BBQ sauce on Microsoft approved pizzas. And before you know, these pizzas will be degraded.</p></div><p>I'd say any pizza with BBQ sauce on it is already pretty much degraded!</p><p>I'd go for baconnaise instead!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The license agreement says you are only allowed to use their BBQ sauce on Microsoft approved pizzas .
And before you know , these pizzas will be degraded.I 'd say any pizza with BBQ sauce on it is already pretty much degraded ! I 'd go for baconnaise instead !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The license agreement says you are only allowed to use their BBQ sauce on Microsoft approved pizzas.
And before you know, these pizzas will be degraded.I'd say any pizza with BBQ sauce on it is already pretty much degraded!I'd go for baconnaise instead!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30415306</id>
	<title>Re:Congratulations!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260643140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah...Tales of Microsoft's demise have been greatly (and over a long period) exaggerated.</p><p>And MS is the most developer friendly company in the world, so they have plenty of others creating novel goods and services with their platforms.  But nice try, rabble rouser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah...Tales of Microsoft 's demise have been greatly ( and over a long period ) exaggerated.And MS is the most developer friendly company in the world , so they have plenty of others creating novel goods and services with their platforms .
But nice try , rabble rouser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah...Tales of Microsoft's demise have been greatly (and over a long period) exaggerated.And MS is the most developer friendly company in the world, so they have plenty of others creating novel goods and services with their platforms.
But nice try, rabble rouser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30414102</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A protocol is not a piece of software.  An *implementation* of a protocol is a piece of software.</p><p>You shouldn't have to create your own protocol - in fact, you should avoid creating your own it if at all possible - because sharing a protocol means that various pieces of software can interoperate, hugely increasing the total value of the system and avoiding vendor lock-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A protocol is not a piece of software .
An * implementation * of a protocol is a piece of software.You should n't have to create your own protocol - in fact , you should avoid creating your own it if at all possible - because sharing a protocol means that various pieces of software can interoperate , hugely increasing the total value of the system and avoiding vendor lock-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A protocol is not a piece of software.
An *implementation* of a protocol is a piece of software.You shouldn't have to create your own protocol - in fact, you should avoid creating your own it if at all possible - because sharing a protocol means that various pieces of software can interoperate, hugely increasing the total value of the system and avoiding vendor lock-in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260559680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeah right how dare they not just do it all for free right? there's no reason you can't charge a license for a protocol, just like any other piece of software. there should of course be nothing preventing you writing a competing protocol or your own clean room version. that's why patent are bad, but this is not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah right how dare they not just do it all for free right ?
there 's no reason you ca n't charge a license for a protocol , just like any other piece of software .
there should of course be nothing preventing you writing a competing protocol or your own clean room version .
that 's why patent are bad , but this is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah right how dare they not just do it all for free right?
there's no reason you can't charge a license for a protocol, just like any other piece of software.
there should of course be nothing preventing you writing a competing protocol or your own clean room version.
that's why patent are bad, but this is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30421284</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260697560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell is &ldquo;garlic salt&rdquo;? Isn&rsquo;t that just garlic and salt? But how much of it is garlic then?fresh ingredients, it will taste way better! (Or deep-frozen. But not dried or heated or something. But take more if it&rsquo;s fresh because of the additional water in it.)<br>2. If you put the seasoning *below* the skin of the chicken, with a bit of butter, it will become even greater.<br>3. I prefer real herbes de Provence and a bit or garlic instead. Best taste ever. (If done right.)</p><p>How this is on-topic you ask? Well it&rsquo;s hacking of an open-source recipe an as an analogy for protocol hacking that &rsquo;re talking about here. Isn&rsquo;t it obvious? ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is    garlic salt    ?
Isn    t that just garlic and salt ?
But how much of it is garlic then ? fresh ingredients , it will taste way better !
( Or deep-frozen .
But not dried or heated or something .
But take more if it    s fresh because of the additional water in it. ) 2 .
If you put the seasoning * below * the skin of the chicken , with a bit of butter , it will become even greater.3 .
I prefer real herbes de Provence and a bit or garlic instead .
Best taste ever .
( If done right .
) How this is on-topic you ask ?
Well it    s hacking of an open-source recipe an as an analogy for protocol hacking that    re talking about here .
Isn    t it obvious ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is “garlic salt”?
Isn’t that just garlic and salt?
But how much of it is garlic then?fresh ingredients, it will taste way better!
(Or deep-frozen.
But not dried or heated or something.
But take more if it’s fresh because of the additional water in it.)2.
If you put the seasoning *below* the skin of the chicken, with a bit of butter, it will become even greater.3.
I prefer real herbes de Provence and a bit or garlic instead.
Best taste ever.
(If done right.
)How this is on-topic you ask?
Well it’s hacking of an open-source recipe an as an analogy for protocol hacking that ’re talking about here.
Isn’t it obvious?
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411412</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>Entropy98</author>
	<datestamp>1260557220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the IM clients are a bad example.</p><p>The IM clients rely on a central server that costs money.</p><p>A company using Microsoft's FAT format for its memory card isn't going to cost Microsoft anything.</p><p>Starting your own disk format is much harder than your own IM client.</p><p>Really, I've always thought that its the file formats that are keeping Microsoft in their position.</p><p>For instance if you could load windows drivers in Linux, or Mac I think Microsoft would be in serious trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the IM clients are a bad example.The IM clients rely on a central server that costs money.A company using Microsoft 's FAT format for its memory card is n't going to cost Microsoft anything.Starting your own disk format is much harder than your own IM client.Really , I 've always thought that its the file formats that are keeping Microsoft in their position.For instance if you could load windows drivers in Linux , or Mac I think Microsoft would be in serious trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the IM clients are a bad example.The IM clients rely on a central server that costs money.A company using Microsoft's FAT format for its memory card isn't going to cost Microsoft anything.Starting your own disk format is much harder than your own IM client.Really, I've always thought that its the file formats that are keeping Microsoft in their position.For instance if you could load windows drivers in Linux, or Mac I think Microsoft would be in serious trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411552</id>
	<title>Congratulations!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations, Microsoft, and allow me to offer this toast:</p><p>May you attempt to create a revenue stream and inhibit competition, and continue to poison your long-term success by limiting others' ability to create novel goods and services with your platforms.</p><p>May your long, slow, demise be as stealthy as a panther in the night, so that you may continue not to understand until it is too late to recover and your war chest is too depleted to purchase any particularly egregious laws during your death spasms.</p><p>And finally, may Steve Ballmer always be your public face. He is nearly as amusing as Sarah Palin.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations , Microsoft , and allow me to offer this toast : May you attempt to create a revenue stream and inhibit competition , and continue to poison your long-term success by limiting others ' ability to create novel goods and services with your platforms.May your long , slow , demise be as stealthy as a panther in the night , so that you may continue not to understand until it is too late to recover and your war chest is too depleted to purchase any particularly egregious laws during your death spasms.And finally , may Steve Ballmer always be your public face .
He is nearly as amusing as Sarah Palin .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations, Microsoft, and allow me to offer this toast:May you attempt to create a revenue stream and inhibit competition, and continue to poison your long-term success by limiting others' ability to create novel goods and services with your platforms.May your long, slow, demise be as stealthy as a panther in the night, so that you may continue not to understand until it is too late to recover and your war chest is too depleted to purchase any particularly egregious laws during your death spasms.And finally, may Steve Ballmer always be your public face.
He is nearly as amusing as Sarah Palin.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413274</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>The Cisco Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1260627180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might be able to patent a *particular* implementation of the protocol, but if you think you can patent a 'protocol', you don't understand what a protocol is.</p><p>Its like patenting a language. Can you imagine someone patenting English, or French, and then in order to speak it, you'd have to pay a license fee? I'm not talking about books on learning the language, or video courses, or whatever, I'm talking about the language itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might be able to patent a * particular * implementation of the protocol , but if you think you can patent a 'protocol ' , you do n't understand what a protocol is.Its like patenting a language .
Can you imagine someone patenting English , or French , and then in order to speak it , you 'd have to pay a license fee ?
I 'm not talking about books on learning the language , or video courses , or whatever , I 'm talking about the language itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might be able to patent a *particular* implementation of the protocol, but if you think you can patent a 'protocol', you don't understand what a protocol is.Its like patenting a language.
Can you imagine someone patenting English, or French, and then in order to speak it, you'd have to pay a license fee?
I'm not talking about books on learning the language, or video courses, or whatever, I'm talking about the language itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411134</id>
	<title>Just in time, too!</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1260554520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_antitrust" title="wikipedia.org">And it only took them ten years.</a> [wikipedia.org]

</p><p>Funny how the government doesn't even give you <i>ten days</i> past the due date of a parking violation though, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it only took them ten years .
[ wikipedia.org ] Funny how the government does n't even give you ten days past the due date of a parking violation though , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And it only took them ten years.
[wikipedia.org]

Funny how the government doesn't even give you ten days past the due date of a parking violation though, isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411148</id>
	<title>Ahh, shit</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1260554640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here we go again, clumsily trying to do the interoperability dance. It reminds me of deja vu all over again...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go again , clumsily trying to do the interoperability dance .
It reminds me of deja vu all over again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go again, clumsily trying to do the interoperability dance.
It reminds me of deja vu all over again...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411378</id>
	<title>Re:protocols</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1260556860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of the protocols are covered by patents, and some of the protocols have documentation that must be licensed, it isn't all available free, unfortunately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the protocols are covered by patents , and some of the protocols have documentation that must be licensed , it is n't all available free , unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the protocols are covered by patents, and some of the protocols have documentation that must be licensed, it isn't all available free, unfortunately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411882</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260650160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kentucky Fried Chicken Seasoning Mix Recipe<br>
Just mix these commonly-found spices together! Great when used for skinless chicken fingers too.<p>

2 tablespoons salt<br>
2 cups flour<br>
2 tablespoons pepper<br>
4 tablespoons paprika<br>
1 teaspoon garlic salt<br>
1 tablespoon mustard, ground<br>
1 tablespoon French thyme, ground<br>
1 tablespoon sweet basil<br>
1 teaspoon oregano, ground<br>
1 tablespoon jamaica ginger, ground</p><p>
<a href="http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=14201&amp;page=2" title="bubhub.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=14201&amp;page=2</a> [bubhub.com.au]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kentucky Fried Chicken Seasoning Mix Recipe Just mix these commonly-found spices together !
Great when used for skinless chicken fingers too .
2 tablespoons salt 2 cups flour 2 tablespoons pepper 4 tablespoons paprika 1 teaspoon garlic salt 1 tablespoon mustard , ground 1 tablespoon French thyme , ground 1 tablespoon sweet basil 1 teaspoon oregano , ground 1 tablespoon jamaica ginger , ground http : //www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php ? t = 14201&amp;page = 2 [ bubhub.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kentucky Fried Chicken Seasoning Mix Recipe
Just mix these commonly-found spices together!
Great when used for skinless chicken fingers too.
2 tablespoons salt
2 cups flour
2 tablespoons pepper
4 tablespoons paprika
1 teaspoon garlic salt
1 tablespoon mustard, ground
1 tablespoon French thyme, ground
1 tablespoon sweet basil
1 teaspoon oregano, ground
1 tablespoon jamaica ginger, ground
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=14201&amp;page=2 [bubhub.com.au]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411250</id>
	<title>Decision to force them to document more protocols</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1260555780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An interesting side effect of the DOJ's decision to force Microsoft to document more of their protocols was that <i>internal Microsoft employees</i> have found their job easier and the teams more efficient.<br>I stumbled across this tidbit while research for a final paper about software patent (good/bad/why/alternatives). You can read about it <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1117641&amp;rec=1&amp;srcabs=1073103" title="ssrn.com">here</a> [ssrn.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An interesting side effect of the DOJ 's decision to force Microsoft to document more of their protocols was that internal Microsoft employees have found their job easier and the teams more efficient.I stumbled across this tidbit while research for a final paper about software patent ( good/bad/why/alternatives ) .
You can read about it here [ ssrn.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An interesting side effect of the DOJ's decision to force Microsoft to document more of their protocols was that internal Microsoft employees have found their job easier and the teams more efficient.I stumbled across this tidbit while research for a final paper about software patent (good/bad/why/alternatives).
You can read about it here [ssrn.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411956</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260608400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>KFC chicken tastes like ass. Why would I want to replicate it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>KFC chicken tastes like ass .
Why would I want to replicate it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KFC chicken tastes like ass.
Why would I want to replicate it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412876</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>cntThnkofAname</author>
	<datestamp>1260622560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a few pizza recipes that I have licensed under the GPL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a few pizza recipes that I have licensed under the GPL ... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a few pizza recipes that I have licensed under the GPL ... ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412178</id>
	<title>Re:Did Microsoft made yet another mistake?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260613080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols. Microsoft then does what the government asks. Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked.</p><p>Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake.</p></div><p>This is Slashdot. Hereabouts, the ultimate Microsoft mistake is that it exists in the first place.</p><p>Well, some softer guys would settle at MS releasing all its existing code under GPL, and switching to producing a fully libre Linux distro with drivers, blackjack, and hookers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols .
Microsoft then does what the government asks .
Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked.Somehow , the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake.This is Slashdot .
Hereabouts , the ultimate Microsoft mistake is that it exists in the first place.Well , some softer guys would settle at MS releasing all its existing code under GPL , and switching to producing a fully libre Linux distro with drivers , blackjack , and hookers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols.
Microsoft then does what the government asks.
Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked.Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake.This is Slashdot.
Hereabouts, the ultimate Microsoft mistake is that it exists in the first place.Well, some softer guys would settle at MS releasing all its existing code under GPL, and switching to producing a fully libre Linux distro with drivers, blackjack, and hookers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412340</id>
	<title>Samba has a license for many of the key patents</title>
	<author>tridge</author>
	<datestamp>1260616260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before everyone gets too worked up, please look
at this:
<p>
  <a href="http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/" title="samba.org" rel="nofollow">http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/</a> [samba.org]

</p><p>Samba and any other free software project (via the PFIF) has a royalty free license to most of the patents that are important for these
protocols.

</p><p>There are some patents that are excluded from this
(see appendix 4 of the agreement for a list
of the excluded patents), and we do indeed need
to avoid infringement of those patents. That
has not so far proved to be an insurmountable
obstacle, although it is an inconvenience.

</p><p>Cheers, Tridge</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before everyone gets too worked up , please look at this : http : //samba.org/samba/PFIF/ [ samba.org ] Samba and any other free software project ( via the PFIF ) has a royalty free license to most of the patents that are important for these protocols .
There are some patents that are excluded from this ( see appendix 4 of the agreement for a list of the excluded patents ) , and we do indeed need to avoid infringement of those patents .
That has not so far proved to be an insurmountable obstacle , although it is an inconvenience .
Cheers , Tridge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before everyone gets too worked up, please look
at this:

  http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/ [samba.org]

Samba and any other free software project (via the PFIF) has a royalty free license to most of the patents that are important for these
protocols.
There are some patents that are excluded from this
(see appendix 4 of the agreement for a list
of the excluded patents), and we do indeed need
to avoid infringement of those patents.
That
has not so far proved to be an insurmountable
obstacle, although it is an inconvenience.
Cheers, Tridge</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412354</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1260616440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is in fact the case here. According to the article, some of the protocols are encumbered by patents.  I can't imagine what kind of patent you can get on a protocol, but that is the sorry state of the matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is in fact the case here .
According to the article , some of the protocols are encumbered by patents .
I ca n't imagine what kind of patent you can get on a protocol , but that is the sorry state of the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is in fact the case here.
According to the article, some of the protocols are encumbered by patents.
I can't imagine what kind of patent you can get on a protocol, but that is the sorry state of the matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411442</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1260557580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
No, but if you reverse-engineer KFC chicken and determine a recipe that makes something that tastes exactly the same, KFC can't stop you from publishing it.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but if you reverse-engineer KFC chicken and determine a recipe that makes something that tastes exactly the same , KFC ca n't stop you from publishing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No, but if you reverse-engineer KFC chicken and determine a recipe that makes something that tastes exactly the same, KFC can't stop you from publishing it.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166</id>
	<title>Re:Outrageous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260554880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, protocols are like food recipes.</p></div><p>Which <b>can</b> be copyrighted and regarded as a trade secret.  Or do you think that KFC should have to post their recipe online for all to see?
</p><p>Perhaps you should try a car analogy instead?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , protocols are like food recipes.Which can be copyrighted and regarded as a trade secret .
Or do you think that KFC should have to post their recipe online for all to see ?
Perhaps you should try a car analogy instead ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, protocols are like food recipes.Which can be copyrighted and regarded as a trade secret.
Or do you think that KFC should have to post their recipe online for all to see?
Perhaps you should try a car analogy instead?
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30415306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30414102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_0316258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30421284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_0316258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_0316258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_0316258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_0316258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30415306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_0316258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30414102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411882
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30421284
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_0316258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_0316258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_0316258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30411836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30413584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_0316258.30412178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
