<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_16_0213224</id>
	<title>Judge Orders Permanent Injunction Against Psystar</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260969420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>AdmiralXyz writes <i>"It appears to be the end of the road for infamous Mac clone-maker Psystar, as a <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/12/15/apple\_wins\_permanent\_injunction\_against\_clone\_mac\_maker\_psystar.html">federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against the company</a>, banning it from selling its OS X-based hardware products, following <a href="//apple.slashdot.org/story/09/11/14/1954259/Psystar-Crushed-In-Court">November's ruling</a> that Psystar was guilty of copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Specifically, Judge William Alsup's ruling prevents Psystar from 'copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing or creating derivative works of Mac OS X without authorization from Apple; circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X; or doing anything to circumvent the rights held by Apple under the Copyright Act with respect to Mac OS X.' The ruling does not include Psystar's <a href="//apple.slashdot.org/story/09/10/26/2256212/Psystars-Rebel-EFI-Hackintosh-Tool-Reviewed-Found-Wanting">Rebel EFI</a> software, which (in theory) allows users to boot OS X onto some Intel computers, but Alsup said that too would be unlikely to stand up in court if Apple decides to make a formal challenge."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>AdmiralXyz writes " It appears to be the end of the road for infamous Mac clone-maker Psystar , as a federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against the company , banning it from selling its OS X-based hardware products , following November 's ruling that Psystar was guilty of copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act .
Specifically , Judge William Alsup 's ruling prevents Psystar from 'copying , selling , offering to sell , distributing or creating derivative works of Mac OS X without authorization from Apple ; circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X ; or doing anything to circumvent the rights held by Apple under the Copyright Act with respect to Mac OS X .
' The ruling does not include Psystar 's Rebel EFI software , which ( in theory ) allows users to boot OS X onto some Intel computers , but Alsup said that too would be unlikely to stand up in court if Apple decides to make a formal challenge .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AdmiralXyz writes "It appears to be the end of the road for infamous Mac clone-maker Psystar, as a federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against the company, banning it from selling its OS X-based hardware products, following November's ruling that Psystar was guilty of copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Specifically, Judge William Alsup's ruling prevents Psystar from 'copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing or creating derivative works of Mac OS X without authorization from Apple; circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X; or doing anything to circumvent the rights held by Apple under the Copyright Act with respect to Mac OS X.
' The ruling does not include Psystar's Rebel EFI software, which (in theory) allows users to boot OS X onto some Intel computers, but Alsup said that too would be unlikely to stand up in court if Apple decides to make a formal challenge.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690</id>
	<title>Man, I can't stand what Apple has become</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steve Jobs should be beaten to a pulp.  So many people hate Microsoft for the what they did yet are Apple fanboys at the same time whom are doing the same @#$\%ing thing!</p><p>I think Apple makes some nice products, but I absolutely despise Steve Jobs and how he has cloned Apple into Microsoft 2.0.  I hope they get crushed by the EU and at some point the US for anti-competitive practices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs should be beaten to a pulp .
So many people hate Microsoft for the what they did yet are Apple fanboys at the same time whom are doing the same @ # $ \ % ing thing ! I think Apple makes some nice products , but I absolutely despise Steve Jobs and how he has cloned Apple into Microsoft 2.0 .
I hope they get crushed by the EU and at some point the US for anti-competitive practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs should be beaten to a pulp.
So many people hate Microsoft for the what they did yet are Apple fanboys at the same time whom are doing the same @#$\%ing thing!I think Apple makes some nice products, but I absolutely despise Steve Jobs and how he has cloned Apple into Microsoft 2.0.
I hope they get crushed by the EU and at some point the US for anti-competitive practices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461874</id>
	<title>Re:Backwards....</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1259698800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Copyright law allows you to tell people what they can do with \_your\_ software.</em></p><p>No, it doesn't. Copyright prohibits people from doing a number of things without authorization from the copyright holder.  It has absolutely nothing with the ability to tell people what other things they may and may not do with copyrighted works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright law allows you to tell people what they can do with \ _your \ _ software.No , it does n't .
Copyright prohibits people from doing a number of things without authorization from the copyright holder .
It has absolutely nothing with the ability to tell people what other things they may and may not do with copyrighted works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright law allows you to tell people what they can do with \_your\_ software.No, it doesn't.
Copyright prohibits people from doing a number of things without authorization from the copyright holder.
It has absolutely nothing with the ability to tell people what other things they may and may not do with copyrighted works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456968</id>
	<title>Yes - but...</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1259679540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \_only\_ be run on Intel machines.  Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?</p></div><p>Standard answer to all these types of comment: Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position and hence is subject to antitrust regulations. Apple hasn't (certainly not in computers - more debatably in music) and isn't. There <i>really is</i> one law for Microsoft and another for Apple.

</p><p>As far as copyright is concerned. As long as the law accepts that the software you "buy" is licensed rather than owned, the copyright holder can impose whatever terms they want. The principle is no different from saying that some versions of Vista could not be used on virtual machines, or that the OEM Windows that came with your old PC can't be used on your new PC.

</p><p>However, since Microsoft have ~90\% of the personal computer operating system market, Intel have ~80\% of the personal computer CPU market, any attempt to tie them would likely be challenged under antitrust law.

</p><p>Psystar tried the antitrust line against Apple earlier in the case but it was thrown out on the grounds that Apple didn't have a dominant position in the personal computer OS market and the judge din't buy the argument that having a monopoly on the "OS X market" didn't count ("Brand X" will always have a monopoly on "Brand X" products. Duh!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \ _only \ _ be run on Intel machines .
Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on ? Standard answer to all these types of comment : Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position and hence is subject to antitrust regulations .
Apple has n't ( certainly not in computers - more debatably in music ) and is n't .
There really is one law for Microsoft and another for Apple .
As far as copyright is concerned .
As long as the law accepts that the software you " buy " is licensed rather than owned , the copyright holder can impose whatever terms they want .
The principle is no different from saying that some versions of Vista could not be used on virtual machines , or that the OEM Windows that came with your old PC ca n't be used on your new PC .
However , since Microsoft have ~ 90 \ % of the personal computer operating system market , Intel have ~ 80 \ % of the personal computer CPU market , any attempt to tie them would likely be challenged under antitrust law .
Psystar tried the antitrust line against Apple earlier in the case but it was thrown out on the grounds that Apple did n't have a dominant position in the personal computer OS market and the judge di n't buy the argument that having a monopoly on the " OS X market " did n't count ( " Brand X " will always have a monopoly on " Brand X " products .
Duh ! )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \_only\_ be run on Intel machines.
Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?Standard answer to all these types of comment: Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position and hence is subject to antitrust regulations.
Apple hasn't (certainly not in computers - more debatably in music) and isn't.
There really is one law for Microsoft and another for Apple.
As far as copyright is concerned.
As long as the law accepts that the software you "buy" is licensed rather than owned, the copyright holder can impose whatever terms they want.
The principle is no different from saying that some versions of Vista could not be used on virtual machines, or that the OEM Windows that came with your old PC can't be used on your new PC.
However, since Microsoft have ~90\% of the personal computer operating system market, Intel have ~80\% of the personal computer CPU market, any attempt to tie them would likely be challenged under antitrust law.
Psystar tried the antitrust line against Apple earlier in the case but it was thrown out on the grounds that Apple didn't have a dominant position in the personal computer OS market and the judge din't buy the argument that having a monopoly on the "OS X market" didn't count ("Brand X" will always have a monopoly on "Brand X" products.
Duh!)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30459108</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>qwertyatwork</author>
	<datestamp>1259688720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks<br> <br>You sir are truly evil!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks You sir are truly evil !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks You sir are truly evil!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457428</id>
	<title>open source it</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1259682240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well now that it is illegal, they might as well open source it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well now that it is illegal , they might as well open source it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well now that it is illegal, they might as well open source it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458962</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>Richard Steiner</author>
	<datestamp>1259688240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, the definition of a "PC" is hardly fixed.  What happens if you replace components?  The CPU?  The mommyboard?  Replace the case? Is it still the same PC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the definition of a " PC " is hardly fixed .
What happens if you replace components ?
The CPU ?
The mommyboard ?
Replace the case ?
Is it still the same PC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, the definition of a "PC" is hardly fixed.
What happens if you replace components?
The CPU?
The mommyboard?
Replace the case?
Is it still the same PC?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30465060</id>
	<title>Re:Man, I can't stand what Apple has become</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259665920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Steve Jobs should be beaten to a pulp.</p></div><p>And I seriously think you should be arrested, tried and convicted for making such a threat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs should be beaten to a pulp.And I seriously think you should be arrested , tried and convicted for making such a threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs should be beaten to a pulp.And I seriously think you should be arrested, tried and convicted for making such a threat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457852</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1259684040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if microsoft added a clause that XBox OS could only be run on an XBox?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if microsoft added a clause that XBox OS could only be run on an XBox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if microsoft added a clause that XBox OS could only be run on an XBox?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458556</id>
	<title>Re:Man, I can't stand what Apple has become</title>
	<author>bigstrat2003</author>
	<datestamp>1259686560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple is the most evil, anti-competitive company in the industry. If the company went under today, it would only be a good thing for the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is the most evil , anti-competitive company in the industry .
If the company went under today , it would only be a good thing for the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is the most evil, anti-competitive company in the industry.
If the company went under today, it would only be a good thing for the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30459070</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1259688600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't move the standard OEM license you got with your PC to some other PC.</p></div><p>It would be a violation of the OEM license terms, it is quite possible that the provision is not legally binding to a end user, since the End user is not really presented with those terms...  System builders/purchasers are, and would be bound.  IE that is the issue decided here, is that the License applies to a "re-distributor", it may (or may not) apply legally to a end user.  IE it may (or may not) still be a valid licensed legal version of MAC OS-X if a end user purchases OS-X and installs and uses it for their personal use on hardware, even if that hardware is other than that intended by Apple.  I am sure many restrictions apply on how you could advertise/sell this "clone" running OS-X, but I doubt it would be considered a "pirated" version.  IE you could probably sell the license and hardware in the same transaction but listed as separate items, but you probably couldn't advertise in anyway that you were selling a mac/apple clone running OS-X even if you used the term clone.  But I doubt you would have to remove/delete the contents of the hard drive, as long as the OS-X license was transferred to the same person as the computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't move the standard OEM license you got with your PC to some other PC.It would be a violation of the OEM license terms , it is quite possible that the provision is not legally binding to a end user , since the End user is not really presented with those terms... System builders/purchasers are , and would be bound .
IE that is the issue decided here , is that the License applies to a " re-distributor " , it may ( or may not ) apply legally to a end user .
IE it may ( or may not ) still be a valid licensed legal version of MAC OS-X if a end user purchases OS-X and installs and uses it for their personal use on hardware , even if that hardware is other than that intended by Apple .
I am sure many restrictions apply on how you could advertise/sell this " clone " running OS-X , but I doubt it would be considered a " pirated " version .
IE you could probably sell the license and hardware in the same transaction but listed as separate items , but you probably could n't advertise in anyway that you were selling a mac/apple clone running OS-X even if you used the term clone .
But I doubt you would have to remove/delete the contents of the hard drive , as long as the OS-X license was transferred to the same person as the computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't move the standard OEM license you got with your PC to some other PC.It would be a violation of the OEM license terms, it is quite possible that the provision is not legally binding to a end user, since the End user is not really presented with those terms...  System builders/purchasers are, and would be bound.
IE that is the issue decided here, is that the License applies to a "re-distributor", it may (or may not) apply legally to a end user.
IE it may (or may not) still be a valid licensed legal version of MAC OS-X if a end user purchases OS-X and installs and uses it for their personal use on hardware, even if that hardware is other than that intended by Apple.
I am sure many restrictions apply on how you could advertise/sell this "clone" running OS-X, but I doubt it would be considered a "pirated" version.
IE you could probably sell the license and hardware in the same transaction but listed as separate items, but you probably couldn't advertise in anyway that you were selling a mac/apple clone running OS-X even if you used the term clone.
But I doubt you would have to remove/delete the contents of the hard drive, as long as the OS-X license was transferred to the same person as the computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460048</id>
	<title>Re:Either Way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just smashed my Mac Mini. I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces. I had bought it only about two months ago, but after this I will no longer buy, nor even use, Apple products.</p><p>I'm now using Linux on my old desktop, rather than supporting Apple by using their products. It was an enjoyable system to use, but it is not worth it if I have to live with knowing that freedom is being stifled like this for no good reason.</p></div><p>Get rid of that CUPS printing on Linux. Don't use zeroconf. Don't ever install LLVM or GCC ObjC and remove all web browsers with WebKit. You wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just smashed my Mac Mini .
I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces .
I had bought it only about two months ago , but after this I will no longer buy , nor even use , Apple products.I 'm now using Linux on my old desktop , rather than supporting Apple by using their products .
It was an enjoyable system to use , but it is not worth it if I have to live with knowing that freedom is being stifled like this for no good reason.Get rid of that CUPS printing on Linux .
Do n't use zeroconf .
Do n't ever install LLVM or GCC ObjC and remove all web browsers with WebKit .
You would n't want to be seen as a hypocrite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just smashed my Mac Mini.
I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces.
I had bought it only about two months ago, but after this I will no longer buy, nor even use, Apple products.I'm now using Linux on my old desktop, rather than supporting Apple by using their products.
It was an enjoyable system to use, but it is not worth it if I have to live with knowing that freedom is being stifled like this for no good reason.Get rid of that CUPS printing on Linux.
Don't use zeroconf.
Don't ever install LLVM or GCC ObjC and remove all web browsers with WebKit.
You wouldn't want to be seen as a hypocrite.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461696</id>
	<title>Re:Either Way</title>
	<author>zieroh</author>
	<datestamp>1259698140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just smashed my Mac Mini. I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces.</p></div><p>See, now that was a dumb thing to do. If you had <i>sold</i> it, your actions would have had an impact on the company (however small) by denying them a sale from the person who bought your used Mini. By smashing it, you've guaranteed that Apple has made their profit and that it will never appear on the used market. Nice going!</p><p>Also, you're full of shit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just smashed my Mac Mini .
I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces.See , now that was a dumb thing to do .
If you had sold it , your actions would have had an impact on the company ( however small ) by denying them a sale from the person who bought your used Mini .
By smashing it , you 've guaranteed that Apple has made their profit and that it will never appear on the used market .
Nice going ! Also , you 're full of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just smashed my Mac Mini.
I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces.See, now that was a dumb thing to do.
If you had sold it, your actions would have had an impact on the company (however small) by denying them a sale from the person who bought your used Mini.
By smashing it, you've guaranteed that Apple has made their profit and that it will never appear on the used market.
Nice going!Also, you're full of shit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30467700</id>
	<title>Re:Backwards....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259678160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple has every right to tell you what you can do with Apple's software.</p></div><p>If I buy a box containing a copy of some software, that box and its contents are <i>mine</i>.  They can tell me what I am or am not allowed to do with some software running on a computer at Apple HQ (their webservers, for example), but what I do in my home, with my computer, and my software (which they happened to write), is my business.</p><p>Honestly - I've even heard people talking about locking down iPhones as 'Apple doing what it wants with Apple's hardware'.  If you buy something, you own it.  This should not be a difficult concept to understand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has every right to tell you what you can do with Apple 's software.If I buy a box containing a copy of some software , that box and its contents are mine .
They can tell me what I am or am not allowed to do with some software running on a computer at Apple HQ ( their webservers , for example ) , but what I do in my home , with my computer , and my software ( which they happened to write ) , is my business.Honestly - I 've even heard people talking about locking down iPhones as 'Apple doing what it wants with Apple 's hardware' .
If you buy something , you own it .
This should not be a difficult concept to understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has every right to tell you what you can do with Apple's software.If I buy a box containing a copy of some software, that box and its contents are mine.
They can tell me what I am or am not allowed to do with some software running on a computer at Apple HQ (their webservers, for example), but what I do in my home, with my computer, and my software (which they happened to write), is my business.Honestly - I've even heard people talking about locking down iPhones as 'Apple doing what it wants with Apple's hardware'.
If you buy something, you own it.
This should not be a difficult concept to understand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461582</id>
	<title>Re:Yes - but...</title>
	<author>jmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1259697720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would this only apply to software?  We see that in digital media if you purchase a copy, you OWN that single copy, though you're not permitted to make another copy (while the original remains in existence) unless it's fair use (personal backups, short clips in an academic media presentation shown to a small group of people, etc).  So then I can watch my DVD on *ANY* DVD player I want (well OK there's been some gray area here, sue me).  I can listen to that CD I bought on any CD player I want, and I can rip the songs to mp3 format and listen to them on any mp3 device I have.  Why is it that software has this plushy magical "oh noes we're so special we must have special rules in the copyright law" belief?  As far as copyright goes, it's been found in federal cases that when someone purchases a copy of a copyrighted material, he/she OWNS THAT EXACT COPY and should therefore be able to do with it as he/she pleases insofar as it does not violate copyright law.  We've seen that making copies of software is fine as long as it's "fair use" as well (personal copies, backups, installing it on different machines wherein it doesn't violate the licensing agreement -- as in maximum of 1 machine may have it INSTALLED at any time).  So then what's with this judge saying that it's unlawful for someone to take a copy of a piece of software that the purchaser OWNS and saying that they have absolutely *NO RIGHT* to copy it onto another machine that they also own, wouldn't this just be another case of fair use?  And technically, if somehow Apple has made a case that copying their software is a violation of the rules of this universe (or whatever bullshit they are spouting here), what about the intermediate copies made loading the software into memory for execution?  If I put in RAM not cleared by Apple and/or its corporate bed buddies, and that software is loaded onto that RAM, what then?  If I connect any device via USB that has a processor that might serve to run any portion of the software AT ALL (such as shared execution or something, granted this is a contrived example), would this violate some kind of law (maybe that I can't append USB devices to a computer with USB ports?)  If I attach an external drive to this machine am I not permitted to copy the data over to it (say I'm upgrading or re-installing OSX)?  If I attach a second monitor NOT sold by Apple or "approved" in any manner (just a standard DVI or VGA enabled monitor), can't I have the display run to my second monitor?  Can't I change the video card for a better one in some models (not sure on this one)?<br> <br>

It sounds to me, if those situations are completely legal, then there's absolutely no way that it can be illegal for someone to copy and run the software on another machine, because the above conditions are identical to doing so.  From where is this oddity of law coming?  It's inconsistent with the copyright laws we've seen but at the same time claims to be a copyright violation?  Software is independent of hardware.  Unless their software in some way relies solely on the hardware being sold (ie, it's part of the software product, part A doesn't work without part B and vice versa).  Otherwise I see this as a tie-in which have been found to be illegal in a lot of cases: you can only buy this product from us (not just at a discount, literally *ONLY*) IF you also purchase another product from us (where this second product is VASTLY overpriced compared with any competitor) where this second product is identical in operation to a competitors product.  Oh well.  Continue being an evil troll Apple.  If I ever buy OSX (which I won't, pirating is better because it doesn't give you money to pursue frivolous and harmful litigation against companies which might provide fairer pricing to the end-users cutting into your "bottom line"), I'll continue to run it on non-Apple sanctioned hardware.  Fuck you.  And fuck the corrupt judges who found in favor of Apple.  Let me guess what they got for Christmas... brand new MacBook Pro laptops donated to everyone in their offices and families?  Wouldn't be a shocker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would this only apply to software ?
We see that in digital media if you purchase a copy , you OWN that single copy , though you 're not permitted to make another copy ( while the original remains in existence ) unless it 's fair use ( personal backups , short clips in an academic media presentation shown to a small group of people , etc ) .
So then I can watch my DVD on * ANY * DVD player I want ( well OK there 's been some gray area here , sue me ) .
I can listen to that CD I bought on any CD player I want , and I can rip the songs to mp3 format and listen to them on any mp3 device I have .
Why is it that software has this plushy magical " oh noes we 're so special we must have special rules in the copyright law " belief ?
As far as copyright goes , it 's been found in federal cases that when someone purchases a copy of a copyrighted material , he/she OWNS THAT EXACT COPY and should therefore be able to do with it as he/she pleases insofar as it does not violate copyright law .
We 've seen that making copies of software is fine as long as it 's " fair use " as well ( personal copies , backups , installing it on different machines wherein it does n't violate the licensing agreement -- as in maximum of 1 machine may have it INSTALLED at any time ) .
So then what 's with this judge saying that it 's unlawful for someone to take a copy of a piece of software that the purchaser OWNS and saying that they have absolutely * NO RIGHT * to copy it onto another machine that they also own , would n't this just be another case of fair use ?
And technically , if somehow Apple has made a case that copying their software is a violation of the rules of this universe ( or whatever bullshit they are spouting here ) , what about the intermediate copies made loading the software into memory for execution ?
If I put in RAM not cleared by Apple and/or its corporate bed buddies , and that software is loaded onto that RAM , what then ?
If I connect any device via USB that has a processor that might serve to run any portion of the software AT ALL ( such as shared execution or something , granted this is a contrived example ) , would this violate some kind of law ( maybe that I ca n't append USB devices to a computer with USB ports ?
) If I attach an external drive to this machine am I not permitted to copy the data over to it ( say I 'm upgrading or re-installing OSX ) ?
If I attach a second monitor NOT sold by Apple or " approved " in any manner ( just a standard DVI or VGA enabled monitor ) , ca n't I have the display run to my second monitor ?
Ca n't I change the video card for a better one in some models ( not sure on this one ) ?
It sounds to me , if those situations are completely legal , then there 's absolutely no way that it can be illegal for someone to copy and run the software on another machine , because the above conditions are identical to doing so .
From where is this oddity of law coming ?
It 's inconsistent with the copyright laws we 've seen but at the same time claims to be a copyright violation ?
Software is independent of hardware .
Unless their software in some way relies solely on the hardware being sold ( ie , it 's part of the software product , part A does n't work without part B and vice versa ) .
Otherwise I see this as a tie-in which have been found to be illegal in a lot of cases : you can only buy this product from us ( not just at a discount , literally * ONLY * ) IF you also purchase another product from us ( where this second product is VASTLY overpriced compared with any competitor ) where this second product is identical in operation to a competitors product .
Oh well .
Continue being an evil troll Apple .
If I ever buy OSX ( which I wo n't , pirating is better because it does n't give you money to pursue frivolous and harmful litigation against companies which might provide fairer pricing to the end-users cutting into your " bottom line " ) , I 'll continue to run it on non-Apple sanctioned hardware .
Fuck you .
And fuck the corrupt judges who found in favor of Apple .
Let me guess what they got for Christmas... brand new MacBook Pro laptops donated to everyone in their offices and families ?
Would n't be a shocker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would this only apply to software?
We see that in digital media if you purchase a copy, you OWN that single copy, though you're not permitted to make another copy (while the original remains in existence) unless it's fair use (personal backups, short clips in an academic media presentation shown to a small group of people, etc).
So then I can watch my DVD on *ANY* DVD player I want (well OK there's been some gray area here, sue me).
I can listen to that CD I bought on any CD player I want, and I can rip the songs to mp3 format and listen to them on any mp3 device I have.
Why is it that software has this plushy magical "oh noes we're so special we must have special rules in the copyright law" belief?
As far as copyright goes, it's been found in federal cases that when someone purchases a copy of a copyrighted material, he/she OWNS THAT EXACT COPY and should therefore be able to do with it as he/she pleases insofar as it does not violate copyright law.
We've seen that making copies of software is fine as long as it's "fair use" as well (personal copies, backups, installing it on different machines wherein it doesn't violate the licensing agreement -- as in maximum of 1 machine may have it INSTALLED at any time).
So then what's with this judge saying that it's unlawful for someone to take a copy of a piece of software that the purchaser OWNS and saying that they have absolutely *NO RIGHT* to copy it onto another machine that they also own, wouldn't this just be another case of fair use?
And technically, if somehow Apple has made a case that copying their software is a violation of the rules of this universe (or whatever bullshit they are spouting here), what about the intermediate copies made loading the software into memory for execution?
If I put in RAM not cleared by Apple and/or its corporate bed buddies, and that software is loaded onto that RAM, what then?
If I connect any device via USB that has a processor that might serve to run any portion of the software AT ALL (such as shared execution or something, granted this is a contrived example), would this violate some kind of law (maybe that I can't append USB devices to a computer with USB ports?
)  If I attach an external drive to this machine am I not permitted to copy the data over to it (say I'm upgrading or re-installing OSX)?
If I attach a second monitor NOT sold by Apple or "approved" in any manner (just a standard DVI or VGA enabled monitor), can't I have the display run to my second monitor?
Can't I change the video card for a better one in some models (not sure on this one)?
It sounds to me, if those situations are completely legal, then there's absolutely no way that it can be illegal for someone to copy and run the software on another machine, because the above conditions are identical to doing so.
From where is this oddity of law coming?
It's inconsistent with the copyright laws we've seen but at the same time claims to be a copyright violation?
Software is independent of hardware.
Unless their software in some way relies solely on the hardware being sold (ie, it's part of the software product, part A doesn't work without part B and vice versa).
Otherwise I see this as a tie-in which have been found to be illegal in a lot of cases: you can only buy this product from us (not just at a discount, literally *ONLY*) IF you also purchase another product from us (where this second product is VASTLY overpriced compared with any competitor) where this second product is identical in operation to a competitors product.
Oh well.
Continue being an evil troll Apple.
If I ever buy OSX (which I won't, pirating is better because it doesn't give you money to pursue frivolous and harmful litigation against companies which might provide fairer pricing to the end-users cutting into your "bottom line"), I'll continue to run it on non-Apple sanctioned hardware.
Fuck you.
And fuck the corrupt judges who found in favor of Apple.
Let me guess what they got for Christmas... brand new MacBook Pro laptops donated to everyone in their offices and families?
Wouldn't be a shocker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456828</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>644bd346996</author>
	<datestamp>1259678820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They wouldn't be able to do that in a timely fashion without inviting several breach of contract lawsuits from OEMs that sell AMD PCs.</p><p>And given the sizes of Intel and Microsoft, they'd get savagely beat down by antitrust regulators before AMD's lawyers could even mail their threats. (I'm not saying that the Obama administration would be quick or harsh, but Neelie Kroes would be.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They would n't be able to do that in a timely fashion without inviting several breach of contract lawsuits from OEMs that sell AMD PCs.And given the sizes of Intel and Microsoft , they 'd get savagely beat down by antitrust regulators before AMD 's lawyers could even mail their threats .
( I 'm not saying that the Obama administration would be quick or harsh , but Neelie Kroes would be .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They wouldn't be able to do that in a timely fashion without inviting several breach of contract lawsuits from OEMs that sell AMD PCs.And given the sizes of Intel and Microsoft, they'd get savagely beat down by antitrust regulators before AMD's lawyers could even mail their threats.
(I'm not saying that the Obama administration would be quick or harsh, but Neelie Kroes would be.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457258</id>
	<title>Backwards....</title>
	<author>Viewsonic</author>
	<datestamp>1259681280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they couldn't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines? How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they can't sell OSX on machines? The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines, while telling Microsoft they can't?
<p>
What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they could n't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines ?
How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they ca n't sell OSX on machines ?
The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines , while telling Microsoft they ca n't ?
What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they couldn't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines?
How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they can't sell OSX on machines?
The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines, while telling Microsoft they can't?
What?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461230</id>
	<title>Uh, How?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, How? How is this copyright infringement as per DMCA when the DMCA says you can break copy protection for interoperability?</p><p>Truly your judges are insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , How ?
How is this copyright infringement as per DMCA when the DMCA says you can break copy protection for interoperability ? Truly your judges are insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, How?
How is this copyright infringement as per DMCA when the DMCA says you can break copy protection for interoperability?Truly your judges are insane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30467888</id>
	<title>Re:Either Way</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1259679300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I can't side with either after learning more about what Pystar is really all about.</p><p>RebelEFI is just a ripoff work of what the OSx86 project has been doing.  They did their best to hide it through encryption and the like, but in the end, it was shown that RebelEFI is a derivative of a GPLed project and they are in violation of the GPL.  It's time they released the source code.</p><p>I admire their boldness -- reselling MacOSX preconfigured on non-Apple software.  But the GPL thing just sours me on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I ca n't side with either after learning more about what Pystar is really all about.RebelEFI is just a ripoff work of what the OSx86 project has been doing .
They did their best to hide it through encryption and the like , but in the end , it was shown that RebelEFI is a derivative of a GPLed project and they are in violation of the GPL .
It 's time they released the source code.I admire their boldness -- reselling MacOSX preconfigured on non-Apple software .
But the GPL thing just sours me on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I can't side with either after learning more about what Pystar is really all about.RebelEFI is just a ripoff work of what the OSx86 project has been doing.
They did their best to hide it through encryption and the like, but in the end, it was shown that RebelEFI is a derivative of a GPLed project and they are in violation of the GPL.
It's time they released the source code.I admire their boldness -- reselling MacOSX preconfigured on non-Apple software.
But the GPL thing just sours me on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458358</id>
	<title>My mind must be in the gutter again...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Raise your hand if you misread that title as "... Injunction Against Pornstar".</p><p>/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Raise your hand if you misread that title as " ... Injunction Against Pornstar " ./</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raise your hand if you misread that title as "... Injunction Against Pornstar"./</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457328</id>
	<title>Future Monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259681760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would this be the same legal system that will be bringing antitrust charges against Apple at some point in the future?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would this be the same legal system that will be bringing antitrust charges against Apple at some point in the future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would this be the same legal system that will be bringing antitrust charges against Apple at some point in the future?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458568</id>
	<title>re: hated for Steve Jobs WHY?</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1259686620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I don't follow your "logic" here?</p><p>Apple is essentially running their business the SAME way *all* personal computer businesses did back in the 1980's, before the "PC clone" became the de-facto standard machine.  Many of the people I encounter who have a strong dislike of Microsoft are simply saying they hate the way the company's products homogenized everything in the personal computer world.  They essentially got things to the point where you either ran Microsoft's OS and flagship applications (like Office), or else your alternatives were pretty much all non-commercial products developed by community (like Linux or BSD).  These people LIKE Apple because they're the last holdout of the "old way" of selling computers, where each manufacturer had a proprietary system that they tried to enhance and prove was the "best way" to use a computer.  They're pretty much the last relevant competitor to Microsoft products that goes "toe to toe" with them, claiming they offer an "easy to use" solution appropriate for anybody -- even opening hundreds of retail stores to ensure the "average Joe" can view and purchase their offerings locally (since Microsoft products had that same visibility on store shelves everywhere).</p><p>In my mind, Apple is *far* from becoming "Microsoft 2.0".  For starters, Steve Jobs has stated on multiple occasions that he has no interest in having the MOST market-share.  He's not interested in playing the "grow as fast as possible, as large as possible" game.  Sure, he wants Apple to be successful and its market-share to grow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but if being the "biggest" was his true goal, why would he sit on HUGE cash reserves and not re-invest them in growing the company larger?  Additionally, he's refrained from putting any type of Product Activation in any version of OS X.  There's not even so much as a CD key to be entered.  It simply verifies you're trying to install it on a machine Apple actually built for the purpose, and installs with no hassles.  Apple is able to do that primarily because they actually sell their own computer systems, unlike Microsoft.  (Hey, another difference!)</p><p>I'm not defending Steve Jobs on a personal level.  I get the idea that like many successful CEO types, he's arrogant, demanding, and tends to be rude and judgmental.  (I'd also question his claimed religious beliefs, given the realities of his lifestyle and character<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but maybe that's a bit unfair, since religion is such a personal thing to begin with.)  But none of that is really relevant to whether or not I think he's running his company well.  I think without Steve Jobs stepping in, Apple would be dead or at best, completely irrelevant today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I do n't follow your " logic " here ? Apple is essentially running their business the SAME way * all * personal computer businesses did back in the 1980 's , before the " PC clone " became the de-facto standard machine .
Many of the people I encounter who have a strong dislike of Microsoft are simply saying they hate the way the company 's products homogenized everything in the personal computer world .
They essentially got things to the point where you either ran Microsoft 's OS and flagship applications ( like Office ) , or else your alternatives were pretty much all non-commercial products developed by community ( like Linux or BSD ) .
These people LIKE Apple because they 're the last holdout of the " old way " of selling computers , where each manufacturer had a proprietary system that they tried to enhance and prove was the " best way " to use a computer .
They 're pretty much the last relevant competitor to Microsoft products that goes " toe to toe " with them , claiming they offer an " easy to use " solution appropriate for anybody -- even opening hundreds of retail stores to ensure the " average Joe " can view and purchase their offerings locally ( since Microsoft products had that same visibility on store shelves everywhere ) .In my mind , Apple is * far * from becoming " Microsoft 2.0 " .
For starters , Steve Jobs has stated on multiple occasions that he has no interest in having the MOST market-share .
He 's not interested in playing the " grow as fast as possible , as large as possible " game .
Sure , he wants Apple to be successful and its market-share to grow ... but if being the " biggest " was his true goal , why would he sit on HUGE cash reserves and not re-invest them in growing the company larger ?
Additionally , he 's refrained from putting any type of Product Activation in any version of OS X. There 's not even so much as a CD key to be entered .
It simply verifies you 're trying to install it on a machine Apple actually built for the purpose , and installs with no hassles .
Apple is able to do that primarily because they actually sell their own computer systems , unlike Microsoft .
( Hey , another difference !
) I 'm not defending Steve Jobs on a personal level .
I get the idea that like many successful CEO types , he 's arrogant , demanding , and tends to be rude and judgmental .
( I 'd also question his claimed religious beliefs , given the realities of his lifestyle and character ... but maybe that 's a bit unfair , since religion is such a personal thing to begin with .
) But none of that is really relevant to whether or not I think he 's running his company well .
I think without Steve Jobs stepping in , Apple would be dead or at best , completely irrelevant today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I don't follow your "logic" here?Apple is essentially running their business the SAME way *all* personal computer businesses did back in the 1980's, before the "PC clone" became the de-facto standard machine.
Many of the people I encounter who have a strong dislike of Microsoft are simply saying they hate the way the company's products homogenized everything in the personal computer world.
They essentially got things to the point where you either ran Microsoft's OS and flagship applications (like Office), or else your alternatives were pretty much all non-commercial products developed by community (like Linux or BSD).
These people LIKE Apple because they're the last holdout of the "old way" of selling computers, where each manufacturer had a proprietary system that they tried to enhance and prove was the "best way" to use a computer.
They're pretty much the last relevant competitor to Microsoft products that goes "toe to toe" with them, claiming they offer an "easy to use" solution appropriate for anybody -- even opening hundreds of retail stores to ensure the "average Joe" can view and purchase their offerings locally (since Microsoft products had that same visibility on store shelves everywhere).In my mind, Apple is *far* from becoming "Microsoft 2.0".
For starters, Steve Jobs has stated on multiple occasions that he has no interest in having the MOST market-share.
He's not interested in playing the "grow as fast as possible, as large as possible" game.
Sure, he wants Apple to be successful and its market-share to grow ... but if being the "biggest" was his true goal, why would he sit on HUGE cash reserves and not re-invest them in growing the company larger?
Additionally, he's refrained from putting any type of Product Activation in any version of OS X.  There's not even so much as a CD key to be entered.
It simply verifies you're trying to install it on a machine Apple actually built for the purpose, and installs with no hassles.
Apple is able to do that primarily because they actually sell their own computer systems, unlike Microsoft.
(Hey, another difference!
)I'm not defending Steve Jobs on a personal level.
I get the idea that like many successful CEO types, he's arrogant, demanding, and tends to be rude and judgmental.
(I'd also question his claimed religious beliefs, given the realities of his lifestyle and character ... but maybe that's a bit unfair, since religion is such a personal thing to begin with.
)  But none of that is really relevant to whether or not I think he's running his company well.
I think without Steve Jobs stepping in, Apple would be dead or at best, completely irrelevant today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457304</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>timster</author>
	<datestamp>1259681580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May be obvious, but by far the majority of Windows licenses are sold exactly that way -- bound to a single piece of hardware.  You can't move the standard OEM license you got with your PC to some other PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May be obvious , but by far the majority of Windows licenses are sold exactly that way -- bound to a single piece of hardware .
You ca n't move the standard OEM license you got with your PC to some other PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May be obvious, but by far the majority of Windows licenses are sold exactly that way -- bound to a single piece of hardware.
You can't move the standard OEM license you got with your PC to some other PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30459936</id>
	<title>Re:Man, I can't stand what Apple has become</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1259691540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you think Unix vendors in the 70s to 90s operated? Do you think it HP, IBM, DEC/Compaq, SGI or Sun would let some unlicensed company buy copies of their operating system and put it on cheap machines and call it a HP-UX/AIX/Digital/Irix/SunOS system? No, it's their software and they can choose how it is redistributed. The end user has a lot more leeway than a reseller.</p><p>(actually for some of those old Unix vendors a lot of it isn't their software, it is merely licensed to them, and they may not have had permission to allow a rogue reseller to operate even if they wanted to)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you think Unix vendors in the 70s to 90s operated ?
Do you think it HP , IBM , DEC/Compaq , SGI or Sun would let some unlicensed company buy copies of their operating system and put it on cheap machines and call it a HP-UX/AIX/Digital/Irix/SunOS system ?
No , it 's their software and they can choose how it is redistributed .
The end user has a lot more leeway than a reseller .
( actually for some of those old Unix vendors a lot of it is n't their software , it is merely licensed to them , and they may not have had permission to allow a rogue reseller to operate even if they wanted to )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you think Unix vendors in the 70s to 90s operated?
Do you think it HP, IBM, DEC/Compaq, SGI or Sun would let some unlicensed company buy copies of their operating system and put it on cheap machines and call it a HP-UX/AIX/Digital/Irix/SunOS system?
No, it's their software and they can choose how it is redistributed.
The end user has a lot more leeway than a reseller.
(actually for some of those old Unix vendors a lot of it isn't their software, it is merely licensed to them, and they may not have had permission to allow a rogue reseller to operate even if they wanted to)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460372</id>
	<title>Re:Either Way</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1259693160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha-ha!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Nelson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha-ha !
/Nelson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha-ha!
/Nelson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1259679600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \_only\_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?</p></div></blockquote><p>There are different facets of the issue which are being largely missed or glossed over every time some brings up one of these hypotheticals:  Copyright law, fair use, and first sale doctrine.</p><p>First sale doctrine allows you to resell something you bought.  Fair use allows to modify or extend something you bought beyond what the original copyright holder intended or wants in certain ways.  Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both <b>modify and resell</b> copyrighted material.  The key word being 'and'.  Copyright law expressly states that permission of the copyright holder is required before modification and redistribution is allowed.</p><p>For those that would bemoan how evil Apple is for protecting their copyrighted proprietary software, realize that Open Source software is based on copyright law.  For example both BSD and GPL licenses extend this modification and redistribution clause by allowing it <b>with conditions</b>.  In the case of MS (and SCO), they cannot ignore this clause if they wish to respect copyright law.</p><p>The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source.  It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights.  If I've hated how <i>The DaVinci Code</i> ended, I could republish it with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks.  It would mean nothing would stop MS from taking Ubuntu, embracing and extending it with proprietary locks that worked only with Windows, and releasing as MS Ubuntu.</p><p>But to answer your question, nothing prevents MS from making Windows exclusive to Intel.  MS is within their legal rights to do so. Many other companies make exclusive software.  Can you run AIX on non-IBM machines?  What about HP-UX on non HP machines?   MS does not because it doesn't make sense to their business model.  Since MS does not sell computer hardware, it would mean loss of sales of software if it did.</p><p>That being said, nothing prevents you from buying a copy of AIX and installing it on a non-IBM machine.  You could blog about it, rant about it on twitter.  IBM has no rights to stop you.  The minute you create a business to modify and resell IBM's copyrighted work, IBM would send the Nazgul against you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \ _only \ _ be run on Intel machines .
Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on ? There are different facets of the issue which are being largely missed or glossed over every time some brings up one of these hypotheticals : Copyright law , fair use , and first sale doctrine.First sale doctrine allows you to resell something you bought .
Fair use allows to modify or extend something you bought beyond what the original copyright holder intended or wants in certain ways .
Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material .
The key word being 'and' .
Copyright law expressly states that permission of the copyright holder is required before modification and redistribution is allowed.For those that would bemoan how evil Apple is for protecting their copyrighted proprietary software , realize that Open Source software is based on copyright law .
For example both BSD and GPL licenses extend this modification and redistribution clause by allowing it with conditions .
In the case of MS ( and SCO ) , they can not ignore this clause if they wish to respect copyright law.The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source .
It would mean that anyone could take someone else 's work , modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights .
If I 've hated how The DaVinci Code ended , I could republish it with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks .
It would mean nothing would stop MS from taking Ubuntu , embracing and extending it with proprietary locks that worked only with Windows , and releasing as MS Ubuntu.But to answer your question , nothing prevents MS from making Windows exclusive to Intel .
MS is within their legal rights to do so .
Many other companies make exclusive software .
Can you run AIX on non-IBM machines ?
What about HP-UX on non HP machines ?
MS does not because it does n't make sense to their business model .
Since MS does not sell computer hardware , it would mean loss of sales of software if it did.That being said , nothing prevents you from buying a copy of AIX and installing it on a non-IBM machine .
You could blog about it , rant about it on twitter .
IBM has no rights to stop you .
The minute you create a business to modify and resell IBM 's copyrighted work , IBM would send the Nazgul against you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \_only\_ be run on Intel machines.
Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?There are different facets of the issue which are being largely missed or glossed over every time some brings up one of these hypotheticals:  Copyright law, fair use, and first sale doctrine.First sale doctrine allows you to resell something you bought.
Fair use allows to modify or extend something you bought beyond what the original copyright holder intended or wants in certain ways.
Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material.
The key word being 'and'.
Copyright law expressly states that permission of the copyright holder is required before modification and redistribution is allowed.For those that would bemoan how evil Apple is for protecting their copyrighted proprietary software, realize that Open Source software is based on copyright law.
For example both BSD and GPL licenses extend this modification and redistribution clause by allowing it with conditions.
In the case of MS (and SCO), they cannot ignore this clause if they wish to respect copyright law.The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source.
It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights.
If I've hated how The DaVinci Code ended, I could republish it with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks.
It would mean nothing would stop MS from taking Ubuntu, embracing and extending it with proprietary locks that worked only with Windows, and releasing as MS Ubuntu.But to answer your question, nothing prevents MS from making Windows exclusive to Intel.
MS is within their legal rights to do so.
Many other companies make exclusive software.
Can you run AIX on non-IBM machines?
What about HP-UX on non HP machines?
MS does not because it doesn't make sense to their business model.
Since MS does not sell computer hardware, it would mean loss of sales of software if it did.That being said, nothing prevents you from buying a copy of AIX and installing it on a non-IBM machine.
You could blog about it, rant about it on twitter.
IBM has no rights to stop you.
The minute you create a business to modify and resell IBM's copyrighted work, IBM would send the Nazgul against you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460298</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1259692860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source. It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights.</p></div><p>that may not be entirely correct with that argument, Pystar was paying Apple for a license for every copy of their product that they made, and giving Apple full credit, selling it as "Apple OS-X".  Open source already had a similar ruling,  IE your allowed to copy, and modify the firefox software all you want but you must not call it firefox (or use their logos) you have to have your own name like say <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla\_Corporation\_software\_rebranded\_by\_the\_Debian\_project#Origins\_of\_the\_issue\_and\_of\_the\_Iceweasel\_name" title="wikipedia.org">iceweasel</a> [wikipedia.org] and simply give credit, and share changes.  I suspect the thing that upset Apple the most (legitimately) with Pystar was more likely associating Apples name, logos, and reputation for OS-X in a attempt to make money on hardware.  Pystar should be allowed to (and likely is allowed to) build compatible hardware, modify apples software to run on that hardware, and to sell licensed apple products (OS-X.) Correct, they shouldn't be allowed to sell the modified software as Apple software (or as their own), and probably shouldn't be allowed to use Apples name, logos, etc in association with pyStar hardware.  I do disagree with the judge on that last point, A boot loader is not DRM, and thus "Psystar's Rebel EFI" software, that appears to modify apples software to allow a different boot-loader, shouldn't be illegal on those grounds (now if py-star didn't write or license that software, and it is from someone else, they should make that claim not apple.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source .
It would mean that anyone could take someone else 's work , modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights.that may not be entirely correct with that argument , Pystar was paying Apple for a license for every copy of their product that they made , and giving Apple full credit , selling it as " Apple OS-X " .
Open source already had a similar ruling , IE your allowed to copy , and modify the firefox software all you want but you must not call it firefox ( or use their logos ) you have to have your own name like say iceweasel [ wikipedia.org ] and simply give credit , and share changes .
I suspect the thing that upset Apple the most ( legitimately ) with Pystar was more likely associating Apples name , logos , and reputation for OS-X in a attempt to make money on hardware .
Pystar should be allowed to ( and likely is allowed to ) build compatible hardware , modify apples software to run on that hardware , and to sell licensed apple products ( OS-X .
) Correct , they should n't be allowed to sell the modified software as Apple software ( or as their own ) , and probably should n't be allowed to use Apples name , logos , etc in association with pyStar hardware .
I do disagree with the judge on that last point , A boot loader is not DRM , and thus " Psystar 's Rebel EFI " software , that appears to modify apples software to allow a different boot-loader , should n't be illegal on those grounds ( now if py-star did n't write or license that software , and it is from someone else , they should make that claim not apple .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source.
It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights.that may not be entirely correct with that argument, Pystar was paying Apple for a license for every copy of their product that they made, and giving Apple full credit, selling it as "Apple OS-X".
Open source already had a similar ruling,  IE your allowed to copy, and modify the firefox software all you want but you must not call it firefox (or use their logos) you have to have your own name like say iceweasel [wikipedia.org] and simply give credit, and share changes.
I suspect the thing that upset Apple the most (legitimately) with Pystar was more likely associating Apples name, logos, and reputation for OS-X in a attempt to make money on hardware.
Pystar should be allowed to (and likely is allowed to) build compatible hardware, modify apples software to run on that hardware, and to sell licensed apple products (OS-X.
) Correct, they shouldn't be allowed to sell the modified software as Apple software (or as their own), and probably shouldn't be allowed to use Apples name, logos, etc in association with pyStar hardware.
I do disagree with the judge on that last point, A boot loader is not DRM, and thus "Psystar's Rebel EFI" software, that appears to modify apples software to allow a different boot-loader, shouldn't be illegal on those grounds (now if py-star didn't write or license that software, and it is from someone else, they should make that claim not apple.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458278</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't know about that one.  My point was IBM dictates the exclusivity of AIX on hardware.  In this case, I would think Apple got permission from IBM before they sold this server.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't know about that one .
My point was IBM dictates the exclusivity of AIX on hardware .
In this case , I would think Apple got permission from IBM before they sold this server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't know about that one.
My point was IBM dictates the exclusivity of AIX on hardware.
In this case, I would think Apple got permission from IBM before they sold this server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456816</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259678760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, They could go even further and say Windows could \_only\_ be run on One computer only.  It is their product they can do what they want with it good or not for the company.  What Microsoft probably couldn't do is say with the existing versions that are already sold change the agreement and AMD can no longer use this, after they released the software and said yes they did back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , They could go even further and say Windows could \ _only \ _ be run on One computer only .
It is their product they can do what they want with it good or not for the company .
What Microsoft probably could n't do is say with the existing versions that are already sold change the agreement and AMD can no longer use this , after they released the software and said yes they did back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, They could go even further and say Windows could \_only\_ be run on One computer only.
It is their product they can do what they want with it good or not for the company.
What Microsoft probably couldn't do is say with the existing versions that are already sold change the agreement and AMD can no longer use this, after they released the software and said yes they did back then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457410</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1259682180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material.</p></div><p>I think that what Psystar was selling was a <b>means</b> (read: tool) to modify the OSX software. That is, modification is left as a final step to be performed by the end-user. Of course they sell that tool bundled with the OSX software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material.I think that what Psystar was selling was a means ( read : tool ) to modify the OSX software .
That is , modification is left as a final step to be performed by the end-user .
Of course they sell that tool bundled with the OSX software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material.I think that what Psystar was selling was a means (read: tool) to modify the OSX software.
That is, modification is left as a final step to be performed by the end-user.
Of course they sell that tool bundled with the OSX software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30464130</id>
	<title>Re:Backwards....</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1259662980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>antitrust laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>antitrust laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>antitrust laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457322</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1259681700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But did they actually modify OS X or did they just provide a software adapter so that it could be installed on the machine? Like how Windows runs on Macs through Boot Camp.

</p><p>Seems to me that this would be allowed unless Apple tied the copyright of the hardware and software together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But did they actually modify OS X or did they just provide a software adapter so that it could be installed on the machine ?
Like how Windows runs on Macs through Boot Camp .
Seems to me that this would be allowed unless Apple tied the copyright of the hardware and software together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But did they actually modify OS X or did they just provide a software adapter so that it could be installed on the machine?
Like how Windows runs on Macs through Boot Camp.
Seems to me that this would be allowed unless Apple tied the copyright of the hardware and software together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457368</id>
	<title>Re:Either Way</title>
	<author>truthsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1259682000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best. Segue. Ever.</p><p>You could write for Letterman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best .
Segue. Ever.You could write for Letterman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best.
Segue. Ever.You could write for Letterman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30462630</id>
	<title>DMCA is the issue</title>
	<author>jriskin</author>
	<datestamp>1259700900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO they should be able to create a computer that pretends to be a real mac.</p><p>The part that concerns me is "Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers."</p><p>Why shouldn't they be able to make an OS X compatible machine? I agree they shouldn't be able to modify AND redistribute OS X. But shipping a machine that allows OS X to be installed seems perfectly reasonable. Activision went through this with Atari early on, making 'compatible software' and later on there are many cases of 'compatible hardware' that have been allowed. But these days the DMCA prevents this sort of thing,</p><p>"(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.&mdash;<br>(1)<br>(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."</p><p>To me that is just unreasonable. As long as it is not a copyright violation, there shouldn't be any rules restricting your rights build your own device/software to interact with any other device/software if it does not cause any harm to 3rd party system. Although, I'm sure this gets sticky when writing an alternative WoW client or some such that 'cheats' or causes some other form of mahem, currently the line is drawn too far in favor of protection over liberty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO they should be able to create a computer that pretends to be a real mac.The part that concerns me is " Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X , including , but not limited to , the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers .
" Why should n't they be able to make an OS X compatible machine ?
I agree they should n't be able to modify AND redistribute OS X. But shipping a machine that allows OS X to be installed seems perfectly reasonable .
Activision went through this with Atari early on , making 'compatible software ' and later on there are many cases of 'compatible hardware ' that have been allowed .
But these days the DMCA prevents this sort of thing , " ( a ) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.    ( 1 ) ( A ) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title .
" To me that is just unreasonable .
As long as it is not a copyright violation , there should n't be any rules restricting your rights build your own device/software to interact with any other device/software if it does not cause any harm to 3rd party system .
Although , I 'm sure this gets sticky when writing an alternative WoW client or some such that 'cheats ' or causes some other form of mahem , currently the line is drawn too far in favor of protection over liberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO they should be able to create a computer that pretends to be a real mac.The part that concerns me is "Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
"Why shouldn't they be able to make an OS X compatible machine?
I agree they shouldn't be able to modify AND redistribute OS X. But shipping a machine that allows OS X to be installed seems perfectly reasonable.
Activision went through this with Atari early on, making 'compatible software' and later on there are many cases of 'compatible hardware' that have been allowed.
But these days the DMCA prevents this sort of thing,"(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
"To me that is just unreasonable.
As long as it is not a copyright violation, there shouldn't be any rules restricting your rights build your own device/software to interact with any other device/software if it does not cause any harm to 3rd party system.
Although, I'm sure this gets sticky when writing an alternative WoW client or some such that 'cheats' or causes some other form of mahem, currently the line is drawn too far in favor of protection over liberty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457926</id>
	<title>Re:Backwards....</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1259684340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wasn't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they couldn't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines? How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they can't sell OSX on machines? The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines, while telling Microsoft they can't?</p></div><p>Basic copyright law. Copyright law allows you to tell people what they can do with \_your\_ software. Microsoft tried to prevent people from installing Linux. Linux is not Microsoft software. Microsoft has no right to tell anyone what they can do with their Linux software. Apple told people what they can do with MacOS X, which is Apple's software. Apple has every right to tell you what you can do with Apple's software. And Apple allows and even supports installation of Windows and Linux on Apple computers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they could n't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines ?
How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they ca n't sell OSX on machines ?
The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines , while telling Microsoft they ca n't ? Basic copyright law .
Copyright law allows you to tell people what they can do with \ _your \ _ software .
Microsoft tried to prevent people from installing Linux .
Linux is not Microsoft software .
Microsoft has no right to tell anyone what they can do with their Linux software .
Apple told people what they can do with MacOS X , which is Apple 's software .
Apple has every right to tell you what you can do with Apple 's software .
And Apple allows and even supports installation of Windows and Linux on Apple computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they couldn't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines?
How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they can't sell OSX on machines?
The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines, while telling Microsoft they can't?Basic copyright law.
Copyright law allows you to tell people what they can do with \_your\_ software.
Microsoft tried to prevent people from installing Linux.
Linux is not Microsoft software.
Microsoft has no right to tell anyone what they can do with their Linux software.
Apple told people what they can do with MacOS X, which is Apple's software.
Apple has every right to tell you what you can do with Apple's software.
And Apple allows and even supports installation of Windows and Linux on Apple computers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30472238</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>spidr\_mnky</author>
	<datestamp>1261057440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I can buy the eggs, milk, and flour, but I can't sell the cake?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I can buy the eggs , milk , and flour , but I ca n't sell the cake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I can buy the eggs, milk, and flour, but I can't sell the cake?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30463270</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259659800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source. It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights."</p><p>No, I don't see how it would have been disastrous - at least not in general.  For commercial works, they would still have to buy one copy for each copy they ship.  Sounds fair to me.  Doesn't seem like it would have any impact on BSD-type F/OSS licenses (the BSD restrictions are so loose (just attribution) that you might be able to protect them with some form of trademark law).  The GPL would be a little confusing - download/patch/redistribute would violate the spirit of the GPL.  The limitation that makes it meaningful for closed source (that you have to pay for the copies) is meaningless if the copies are free.</p><p>My question would be - what interest of society is preserved by NOT allowing this sort of modify-and-resell behavior?  Personally, I see the sort of behavior that Psystar was trying to do as beneficial to society, with little to no negative impact on Apple.  (The only sensible claims I have heard - that Apple would suffer due to bugs on unapproved hardware - seem irrelevant; noone is going to blame Apple for the sort of off-label use that Psystar is trying.)  It sounds similar to some of the movie annotation cases - a company wanted to distribute an "edited" version of Hollywood movies, with swearing/violence/etc. removed for consumers who wanted a "clean" product.  Do you think that someone is going to see your version of Da Vinci Code and mistake it for Dan Brown's original?  Your proposed MS Ubuntu also doesn't quite make sense.  Suppose they did - still, nothing prevents distribution of the original version of Ubuntu.  Microsoft could fork a version right now (as long as it is GPL) and lock it in to Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source .
It would mean that anyone could take someone else 's work , modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights .
" No , I do n't see how it would have been disastrous - at least not in general .
For commercial works , they would still have to buy one copy for each copy they ship .
Sounds fair to me .
Does n't seem like it would have any impact on BSD-type F/OSS licenses ( the BSD restrictions are so loose ( just attribution ) that you might be able to protect them with some form of trademark law ) .
The GPL would be a little confusing - download/patch/redistribute would violate the spirit of the GPL .
The limitation that makes it meaningful for closed source ( that you have to pay for the copies ) is meaningless if the copies are free.My question would be - what interest of society is preserved by NOT allowing this sort of modify-and-resell behavior ?
Personally , I see the sort of behavior that Psystar was trying to do as beneficial to society , with little to no negative impact on Apple .
( The only sensible claims I have heard - that Apple would suffer due to bugs on unapproved hardware - seem irrelevant ; noone is going to blame Apple for the sort of off-label use that Psystar is trying .
) It sounds similar to some of the movie annotation cases - a company wanted to distribute an " edited " version of Hollywood movies , with swearing/violence/etc .
removed for consumers who wanted a " clean " product .
Do you think that someone is going to see your version of Da Vinci Code and mistake it for Dan Brown 's original ?
Your proposed MS Ubuntu also does n't quite make sense .
Suppose they did - still , nothing prevents distribution of the original version of Ubuntu .
Microsoft could fork a version right now ( as long as it is GPL ) and lock it in to Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source.
It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights.
"No, I don't see how it would have been disastrous - at least not in general.
For commercial works, they would still have to buy one copy for each copy they ship.
Sounds fair to me.
Doesn't seem like it would have any impact on BSD-type F/OSS licenses (the BSD restrictions are so loose (just attribution) that you might be able to protect them with some form of trademark law).
The GPL would be a little confusing - download/patch/redistribute would violate the spirit of the GPL.
The limitation that makes it meaningful for closed source (that you have to pay for the copies) is meaningless if the copies are free.My question would be - what interest of society is preserved by NOT allowing this sort of modify-and-resell behavior?
Personally, I see the sort of behavior that Psystar was trying to do as beneficial to society, with little to no negative impact on Apple.
(The only sensible claims I have heard - that Apple would suffer due to bugs on unapproved hardware - seem irrelevant; noone is going to blame Apple for the sort of off-label use that Psystar is trying.
)  It sounds similar to some of the movie annotation cases - a company wanted to distribute an "edited" version of Hollywood movies, with swearing/violence/etc.
removed for consumers who wanted a "clean" product.
Do you think that someone is going to see your version of Da Vinci Code and mistake it for Dan Brown's original?
Your proposed MS Ubuntu also doesn't quite make sense.
Suppose they did - still, nothing prevents distribution of the original version of Ubuntu.
Microsoft could fork a version right now (as long as it is GPL) and lock it in to Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30462274</id>
	<title>The solution is obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quit buying Apple products, seriously, just stop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit buying Apple products , seriously , just stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit buying Apple products, seriously, just stop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461692</id>
	<title>Modern Copyright = You still own it after the sale</title>
	<author>N0Man74</author>
	<datestamp>1259698140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of the ways Copyright has gone so off track.</p><p>It has ceased to be simply a way of protecting a copyright holder from their work being published so that someone else doesn't try to publish it and cut the copyright holder out of the picture.  It was a legal tool to protect copyright holders from companies.</p><p>It's increasingly moving towards the Copyright holder retaining ownership of the work even after the sale.</p><p>Frankly, if Psystar paid for the OS copies legally, and made it clear that the OS that he was reselling was modified, there shouldn't be a copyright issue.  That's not the way it is legally, but it's the way it should be.</p><p>Of all the analogies I see here, I think that it's more in line with someone selling used college textbooks with notes written and additional information marking up the book.  Is that a derivative work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the ways Copyright has gone so off track.It has ceased to be simply a way of protecting a copyright holder from their work being published so that someone else does n't try to publish it and cut the copyright holder out of the picture .
It was a legal tool to protect copyright holders from companies.It 's increasingly moving towards the Copyright holder retaining ownership of the work even after the sale.Frankly , if Psystar paid for the OS copies legally , and made it clear that the OS that he was reselling was modified , there should n't be a copyright issue .
That 's not the way it is legally , but it 's the way it should be.Of all the analogies I see here , I think that it 's more in line with someone selling used college textbooks with notes written and additional information marking up the book .
Is that a derivative work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the ways Copyright has gone so off track.It has ceased to be simply a way of protecting a copyright holder from their work being published so that someone else doesn't try to publish it and cut the copyright holder out of the picture.
It was a legal tool to protect copyright holders from companies.It's increasingly moving towards the Copyright holder retaining ownership of the work even after the sale.Frankly, if Psystar paid for the OS copies legally, and made it clear that the OS that he was reselling was modified, there shouldn't be a copyright issue.
That's not the way it is legally, but it's the way it should be.Of all the analogies I see here, I think that it's more in line with someone selling used college textbooks with notes written and additional information marking up the book.
Is that a derivative work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460516</id>
	<title>Re:Either Way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259693640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just smashed my Mac Mini. I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces.</p></div><p>Pics or didn't happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just smashed my Mac Mini .
I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces.Pics or did n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just smashed my Mac Mini.
I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces.Pics or didn't happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461426</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1259696940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source</em></p><p>Perhaps if Apple lost due to an extraordinary neglect of 17 USC 106, or an extraordinary expansion of fair use and that treatment was upheld on appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open SourcePerhaps if Apple lost due to an extraordinary neglect of 17 USC 106 , or an extraordinary expansion of fair use and that treatment was upheld on appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open SourcePerhaps if Apple lost due to an extraordinary neglect of 17 USC 106, or an extraordinary expansion of fair use and that treatment was upheld on appeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</id>
	<title>Just for fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259677620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just for fun..</p><p>Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \_only\_ be run on Intel machines.  Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for fun..Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \ _only \ _ be run on Intel machines .
Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for fun..Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \_only\_ be run on Intel machines.
Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460712</id>
	<title>...as Psystar rides gently into the sunset...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1259694300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Psystar could have the last laugh by open-sourcing their technology before going belly-up.  Or, if there is an injuction against that, there's always "leaking" it to the torrent sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Psystar could have the last laugh by open-sourcing their technology before going belly-up .
Or , if there is an injuction against that , there 's always " leaking " it to the torrent sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Psystar could have the last laugh by open-sourcing their technology before going belly-up.
Or, if there is an injuction against that, there's always "leaking" it to the torrent sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457914</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>henrik.falk</author>
	<datestamp>1259684280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can you run AIX on non-IBM machines?</p></div><p>Yes. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_Network\_Server" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_Network\_Server</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you run AIX on non-IBM machines ? Yes .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple \ _Network \ _Server [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you run AIX on non-IBM machines?Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_Network\_Server [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457752</id>
	<title>Re:Backwards....</title>
	<author>fracai</author>
	<datestamp>1259683620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Apple didn't tell Psystar that they could sell OS X machines as long as they didn't sell Windows or Linux machines as well.  They just said, "You can't sell OS X machines."</p><p>This has nothing to do with monopolies or anti-trust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Apple did n't tell Psystar that they could sell OS X machines as long as they did n't sell Windows or Linux machines as well .
They just said , " You ca n't sell OS X machines .
" This has nothing to do with monopolies or anti-trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Apple didn't tell Psystar that they could sell OS X machines as long as they didn't sell Windows or Linux machines as well.
They just said, "You can't sell OS X machines.
"This has nothing to do with monopolies or anti-trust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456836</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1259678820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Previously, only the $399 Ultimate edition of Vista could legally be run in a virtual machine. I don't think that is all that different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Previously , only the $ 399 Ultimate edition of Vista could legally be run in a virtual machine .
I do n't think that is all that different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Previously, only the $399 Ultimate edition of Vista could legally be run in a virtual machine.
I don't think that is all that different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396</id>
	<title>Re:Either Way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just smashed my Mac Mini. I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces. I had bought it only about two months ago, but after this I will no longer buy, nor even use, Apple products.</p><p>I'm now using Linux on my old desktop, rather than supporting Apple by using their products. It was an enjoyable system to use, but it is not worth it if I have to live with knowing that freedom is being stifled like this for no good reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just smashed my Mac Mini .
I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces .
I had bought it only about two months ago , but after this I will no longer buy , nor even use , Apple products.I 'm now using Linux on my old desktop , rather than supporting Apple by using their products .
It was an enjoyable system to use , but it is not worth it if I have to live with knowing that freedom is being stifled like this for no good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just smashed my Mac Mini.
I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces.
I had bought it only about two months ago, but after this I will no longer buy, nor even use, Apple products.I'm now using Linux on my old desktop, rather than supporting Apple by using their products.
It was an enjoyable system to use, but it is not worth it if I have to live with knowing that freedom is being stifled like this for no good reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30462560</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1259700720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>First sale doctrine allows you to resell something you bought. Fair use allows to modify or extend something you bought beyond what the original copyright holder intended or wants in certain ways. Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material. The key word being 'and'. Copyright law expressly states that permission of the copyright holder is required before modification and redistribution is allowed.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I have my doubts about that.  If it were true, your 5-year old could use page 153 of your Harry Potter book for toilet paper when you aren't looking, and it would be a violation of Copyright law to sell the book at a garage sale.
</p><p>
I think a better distinction is that Copyright law prohibits <i>copying</i> works for resale.  i.e. You buy one copy, make duplicates, and sell the duplicates.  At least that's what it was supposed to do.  The current bastardization of Copyright law which we have now does all sorts of things which have nothing to do with promoting the arts and sciences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First sale doctrine allows you to resell something you bought .
Fair use allows to modify or extend something you bought beyond what the original copyright holder intended or wants in certain ways .
Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material .
The key word being 'and' .
Copyright law expressly states that permission of the copyright holder is required before modification and redistribution is allowed .
I have my doubts about that .
If it were true , your 5-year old could use page 153 of your Harry Potter book for toilet paper when you are n't looking , and it would be a violation of Copyright law to sell the book at a garage sale .
I think a better distinction is that Copyright law prohibits copying works for resale .
i.e. You buy one copy , make duplicates , and sell the duplicates .
At least that 's what it was supposed to do .
The current bastardization of Copyright law which we have now does all sorts of things which have nothing to do with promoting the arts and sciences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First sale doctrine allows you to resell something you bought.
Fair use allows to modify or extend something you bought beyond what the original copyright holder intended or wants in certain ways.
Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material.
The key word being 'and'.
Copyright law expressly states that permission of the copyright holder is required before modification and redistribution is allowed.
I have my doubts about that.
If it were true, your 5-year old could use page 153 of your Harry Potter book for toilet paper when you aren't looking, and it would be a violation of Copyright law to sell the book at a garage sale.
I think a better distinction is that Copyright law prohibits copying works for resale.
i.e. You buy one copy, make duplicates, and sell the duplicates.
At least that's what it was supposed to do.
The current bastardization of Copyright law which we have now does all sorts of things which have nothing to do with promoting the arts and sciences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458004</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1259684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \_only\_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?</p></div><p>They already do, just not exactly as you stated.</p><p>It is already illegal to take an OEM Windows license from one PC and install it on any other PC.<br>In that sense the license is definitely tied to ONE computer.</p><p>It is a sad state of things and probably shouldn't be this way, but it has been law for long before Apple (or even Microsoft) started doing this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \ _only \ _ be run on Intel machines .
Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on ? They already do , just not exactly as you stated.It is already illegal to take an OEM Windows license from one PC and install it on any other PC.In that sense the license is definitely tied to ONE computer.It is a sad state of things and probably should n't be this way , but it has been law for long before Apple ( or even Microsoft ) started doing this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \_only\_ be run on Intel machines.
Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?They already do, just not exactly as you stated.It is already illegal to take an OEM Windows license from one PC and install it on any other PC.In that sense the license is definitely tied to ONE computer.It is a sad state of things and probably shouldn't be this way, but it has been law for long before Apple (or even Microsoft) started doing this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461610</id>
	<title>Re:Man, I can't stand what Apple has become</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1259697780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think your sig should read "Nerd Rage Games".</p><p>It would be more apt.</p><p>Microsoft 2.0? Hardly. Read some of the other replies already appended to your post - I don't want to repeat too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think your sig should read " Nerd Rage Games " .It would be more apt.Microsoft 2.0 ?
Hardly. Read some of the other replies already appended to your post - I do n't want to repeat too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think your sig should read "Nerd Rage Games".It would be more apt.Microsoft 2.0?
Hardly. Read some of the other replies already appended to your post - I don't want to repeat too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461492</id>
	<title>Re:Either Way</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1259697300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if you have a 1394 interface on your mobo you should break out the soldering iron and get that freedom sucking plug out of your life.<br> <br>With the exception of a short period of time way back in OS7 land, Apple has always blocked attempts to run their software on other peoples hardware. If they have not gone after PearC yet, they are no doubt working towards that goal.<br> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac\_clone#Official\_Macintosh\_clone\_program" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac\_clone#Official\_Macintosh\_clone\_program</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you have a 1394 interface on your mobo you should break out the soldering iron and get that freedom sucking plug out of your life .
With the exception of a short period of time way back in OS7 land , Apple has always blocked attempts to run their software on other peoples hardware .
If they have not gone after PearC yet , they are no doubt working towards that goal .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac \ _clone # Official \ _Macintosh \ _clone \ _program [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you have a 1394 interface on your mobo you should break out the soldering iron and get that freedom sucking plug out of your life.
With the exception of a short period of time way back in OS7 land, Apple has always blocked attempts to run their software on other peoples hardware.
If they have not gone after PearC yet, they are no doubt working towards that goal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac\_clone#Official\_Macintosh\_clone\_program [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456624</id>
	<title>Dungodung is a loser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259677620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like Nawlinkwiki and Chris G.</p><p></p><p>Go to this Wikipedia and vandalize it. Tell them Willy on Wheels aka Grawp's Dad sent you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Nawlinkwiki and Chris G.Go to this Wikipedia and vandalize it .
Tell them Willy on Wheels aka Grawp 's Dad sent you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Nawlinkwiki and Chris G.Go to this Wikipedia and vandalize it.
Tell them Willy on Wheels aka Grawp's Dad sent you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457494</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>eelke\_klein</author>
	<datestamp>1259682600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Propably not</p><p>However if they made some software for some Microsoft branded computer they would be allowed to limit the use of that software to that computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Propably notHowever if they made some software for some Microsoft branded computer they would be allowed to limit the use of that software to that computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Propably notHowever if they made some software for some Microsoft branded computer they would be allowed to limit the use of that software to that computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457760</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259683620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny you say that. I've been curious if someone has been behind the company, financially supporting maybe their legal time to test the waters of the issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny you say that .
I 've been curious if someone has been behind the company , financially supporting maybe their legal time to test the waters of the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny you say that.
I've been curious if someone has been behind the company, financially supporting maybe their legal time to test the waters of the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456566</id>
	<title>Either Way</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1259677200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Injunction or not, it would still be shot at the Israel border as ''Not Kosher".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Injunction or not , it would still be shot at the Israel border as ''Not Kosher " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Injunction or not, it would still be shot at the Israel border as ''Not Kosher".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30467306</id>
	<title>Re:...as Psystar rides gently into the sunset...</title>
	<author>GaryPatterson</author>
	<datestamp>1259675640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure the Psystar 'technology' was just lifted from the Hackintosh community and resold. The info is hardly a secret, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure the Psystar 'technology ' was just lifted from the Hackintosh community and resold .
The info is hardly a secret , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure the Psystar 'technology' was just lifted from the Hackintosh community and resold.
The info is hardly a secret, after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30462500</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1259700540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not obvious if everyone keeps overlooking it, and a good point to bring up. All of the major hardware vendors off Windows bundled to the hardware, and I'm sure most will tell you it's non-transferable. Even Microsoft Windows itself will throw up if you put it on a different piece of hardware due to it's 'Genuine Disadvantage' program.</p><p>If you buy a boxed copy of Windows, you pay a premium above and beyond what a manufacturer will pay, and you can transfer it to any PC you want, as long as it's only on one PC at a time. Software bundled on an OEM PC is not the same, as it will typically state the license is non-transferable. People typically ignore it as they haven't started tying keys to some sort of serial number, but I'm sure they'll probably try this at some point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not obvious if everyone keeps overlooking it , and a good point to bring up .
All of the major hardware vendors off Windows bundled to the hardware , and I 'm sure most will tell you it 's non-transferable .
Even Microsoft Windows itself will throw up if you put it on a different piece of hardware due to it 's 'Genuine Disadvantage ' program.If you buy a boxed copy of Windows , you pay a premium above and beyond what a manufacturer will pay , and you can transfer it to any PC you want , as long as it 's only on one PC at a time .
Software bundled on an OEM PC is not the same , as it will typically state the license is non-transferable .
People typically ignore it as they have n't started tying keys to some sort of serial number , but I 'm sure they 'll probably try this at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not obvious if everyone keeps overlooking it, and a good point to bring up.
All of the major hardware vendors off Windows bundled to the hardware, and I'm sure most will tell you it's non-transferable.
Even Microsoft Windows itself will throw up if you put it on a different piece of hardware due to it's 'Genuine Disadvantage' program.If you buy a boxed copy of Windows, you pay a premium above and beyond what a manufacturer will pay, and you can transfer it to any PC you want, as long as it's only on one PC at a time.
Software bundled on an OEM PC is not the same, as it will typically state the license is non-transferable.
People typically ignore it as they haven't started tying keys to some sort of serial number, but I'm sure they'll probably try this at some point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458614</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259686740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Windows did not run on AMD machines without requiring a patch, then yes, resellers wouldn't have a legal way to sell preloaded Windows on AMD machines.  If Windows did run without a patch, then no, it wouldn't be illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows.</p><p>If you can't get the job done without creating and distributing a derived work, then you're going to trigger copyright law and then need a friendly license that allows you to get your job done. If the license doesn't allow it <em>and</em> copyright law doesn't allow it, you're screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Windows did not run on AMD machines without requiring a patch , then yes , resellers would n't have a legal way to sell preloaded Windows on AMD machines .
If Windows did run without a patch , then no , it would n't be illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows.If you ca n't get the job done without creating and distributing a derived work , then you 're going to trigger copyright law and then need a friendly license that allows you to get your job done .
If the license does n't allow it and copyright law does n't allow it , you 're screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Windows did not run on AMD machines without requiring a patch, then yes, resellers wouldn't have a legal way to sell preloaded Windows on AMD machines.
If Windows did run without a patch, then no, it wouldn't be illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows.If you can't get the job done without creating and distributing a derived work, then you're going to trigger copyright law and then need a friendly license that allows you to get your job done.
If the license doesn't allow it and copyright law doesn't allow it, you're screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457264</id>
	<title>Too bad the DMCA goes against copyright law...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259681340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has no mechanisms to allow for encrypted content to come into the public domain after the copyright term has expired.<br>Without said mechanisms, it essentially extends copyrights to eternity through making decrypting illegal forever.<br>We need to have publicly available keys that when the copyright term is over, unlocks the content for all future use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has no mechanisms to allow for encrypted content to come into the public domain after the copyright term has expired.Without said mechanisms , it essentially extends copyrights to eternity through making decrypting illegal forever.We need to have publicly available keys that when the copyright term is over , unlocks the content for all future use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has no mechanisms to allow for encrypted content to come into the public domain after the copyright term has expired.Without said mechanisms, it essentially extends copyrights to eternity through making decrypting illegal forever.We need to have publicly available keys that when the copyright term is over, unlocks the content for all future use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458002</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1259684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, you are wrong.<br> <br>They are trying to weasel around the injuction by doing what you describe <i>NOW</i>, but originally they were selling PC's with OSX pre-installed.  That means that <i>Pystar</i> was doing the illegal modification and re-distribution.  The RebelEFI product they came out with recently is an attempt to shift the burden of legal responsibility to their customers.<br> <br>The legal status of RebelEFI was not decided explicitly by the courts injunction, but the Judge indicated that he doubted it would be exempt from the degree, and that Pystar proceeded with its sale at its own peril.  That is because selling tools to circumvent DRM is as illegal as doing the circumvention yourself.  That the RebelEFI is reported by some to be ripped off work from the Hackintosh community just makes Pystar that much more reprehensible IMO.  Many can get behind the idea of "Screw the Man", but they appear to be trying to "Screw the Masses" as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you are wrong .
They are trying to weasel around the injuction by doing what you describe NOW , but originally they were selling PC 's with OSX pre-installed .
That means that Pystar was doing the illegal modification and re-distribution .
The RebelEFI product they came out with recently is an attempt to shift the burden of legal responsibility to their customers .
The legal status of RebelEFI was not decided explicitly by the courts injunction , but the Judge indicated that he doubted it would be exempt from the degree , and that Pystar proceeded with its sale at its own peril .
That is because selling tools to circumvent DRM is as illegal as doing the circumvention yourself .
That the RebelEFI is reported by some to be ripped off work from the Hackintosh community just makes Pystar that much more reprehensible IMO .
Many can get behind the idea of " Screw the Man " , but they appear to be trying to " Screw the Masses " as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you are wrong.
They are trying to weasel around the injuction by doing what you describe NOW, but originally they were selling PC's with OSX pre-installed.
That means that Pystar was doing the illegal modification and re-distribution.
The RebelEFI product they came out with recently is an attempt to shift the burden of legal responsibility to their customers.
The legal status of RebelEFI was not decided explicitly by the courts injunction, but the Judge indicated that he doubted it would be exempt from the degree, and that Pystar proceeded with its sale at its own peril.
That is because selling tools to circumvent DRM is as illegal as doing the circumvention yourself.
That the RebelEFI is reported by some to be ripped off work from the Hackintosh community just makes Pystar that much more reprehensible IMO.
Many can get behind the idea of "Screw the Man", but they appear to be trying to "Screw the Masses" as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458402</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1259686020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source. It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights. If I've hated how The DaVinci Code ended, I could republish it with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks. It would mean nothing would stop MS from taking Ubuntu, embracing and extending it with proprietary locks that worked only with Windows, and releasing as MS Ubuntu.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.howitshouldhaveended.com/" title="howitshouldhaveended.com">What is wrong with republishing a work with a better ending?</a> [howitshouldhaveended.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source .
It would mean that anyone could take someone else 's work , modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights .
If I 've hated how The DaVinci Code ended , I could republish it with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks .
It would mean nothing would stop MS from taking Ubuntu , embracing and extending it with proprietary locks that worked only with Windows , and releasing as MS Ubuntu .
What is wrong with republishing a work with a better ending ?
[ howitshouldhaveended.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source.
It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights.
If I've hated how The DaVinci Code ended, I could republish it with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks.
It would mean nothing would stop MS from taking Ubuntu, embracing and extending it with proprietary locks that worked only with Windows, and releasing as MS Ubuntu.
What is wrong with republishing a work with a better ending?
[howitshouldhaveended.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457944</id>
	<title>Re:Just for fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259684400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just for fun..</p><p>Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \_only\_ be run on Intel machines.  Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?</p></div><p>It would be still be legal to sell AMD machines with windows on (the hardware), since MS doesn't own the machine itself, you bought it and you can do what you like with it. But it would be illegal to sell (or give away) the copy of windows that was running on that machine, since you must follow the terms of the software license.</p><p>Psystar were basically arguing the former, and Apple were arguing the latter. Apple won.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for fun..Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \ _only \ _ be run on Intel machines .
Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on ? It would be still be legal to sell AMD machines with windows on ( the hardware ) , since MS does n't own the machine itself , you bought it and you can do what you like with it .
But it would be illegal to sell ( or give away ) the copy of windows that was running on that machine , since you must follow the terms of the software license.Psystar were basically arguing the former , and Apple were arguing the latter .
Apple won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for fun..Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could \_only\_ be run on Intel machines.
Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?It would be still be legal to sell AMD machines with windows on (the hardware), since MS doesn't own the machine itself, you bought it and you can do what you like with it.
But it would be illegal to sell (or give away) the copy of windows that was running on that machine, since you must follow the terms of the software license.Psystar were basically arguing the former, and Apple were arguing the latter.
Apple won.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30463334</id>
	<title>Re:Either Way</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1259659980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much better to do what I do:</p><p>Hackintosh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much better to do what I do : Hackintosh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much better to do what I do:Hackintosh!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458998</id>
	<title>It's over?</title>
	<author>qwertyatwork</author>
	<datestamp>1259688360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So this is finally over...again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is finally over...again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is finally over...again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30465060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30464130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30459936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30459070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30467700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30463270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30463334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30462560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30462500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30472238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30467306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30467888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30459108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0213224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0213224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457304
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458962
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30459070
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30462500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457914
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30459108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30462560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30463270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30472238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0213224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30467700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30464130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0213224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460048
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461492
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30467888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30463334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0213224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30462630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0213224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0213224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30460712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30467306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0213224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30456624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0213224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0213224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0213224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30457690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30461610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30465060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30458556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0213224.30459936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
