<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_21_132243</id>
	<title>Microsoft Sued Over Bing Trademark</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1261403460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mentus writes <i>"Bing! Information Design, a design company from Missouri, is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/21/microsoft-bing-trademark">suing Microsoft over 'intentional interference' with their trademark</a> and claiming Microsoft had knowledge of the trademark when it relaunched its rebranded search engine. Microsoft legal representative Kevin Kutz states that he believes the case will be dismissed and that Microsoft 'always respect[s] trademarks and other people's intellectual property, and look[s] forward to the next steps in the judicial process.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mentus writes " Bing !
Information Design , a design company from Missouri , is suing Microsoft over 'intentional interference ' with their trademark and claiming Microsoft had knowledge of the trademark when it relaunched its rebranded search engine .
Microsoft legal representative Kevin Kutz states that he believes the case will be dismissed and that Microsoft 'always respect [ s ] trademarks and other people 's intellectual property , and look [ s ] forward to the next steps in the judicial process .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mentus writes "Bing!
Information Design, a design company from Missouri, is suing Microsoft over 'intentional interference' with their trademark and claiming Microsoft had knowledge of the trademark when it relaunched its rebranded search engine.
Microsoft legal representative Kevin Kutz states that he believes the case will be dismissed and that Microsoft 'always respect[s] trademarks and other people's intellectual property, and look[s] forward to the next steps in the judicial process.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511510</id>
	<title>Yeah, right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, right.  Microsoft always respects other companies trademarks.  Except when they don't like them.  Tell that to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_vs.\_Lindows" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Lindows</a> [wikipedia.org] who Microsoft unsuccessfully sued for trademark infringement, and who eventually sold the Lindows trademark to Microsoft for $20 million.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right .
Microsoft always respects other companies trademarks .
Except when they do n't like them .
Tell that to Lindows [ wikipedia.org ] who Microsoft unsuccessfully sued for trademark infringement , and who eventually sold the Lindows trademark to Microsoft for $ 20 million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right.
Microsoft always respects other companies trademarks.
Except when they don't like them.
Tell that to Lindows [wikipedia.org] who Microsoft unsuccessfully sued for trademark infringement, and who eventually sold the Lindows trademark to Microsoft for $20 million.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511492</id>
	<title>First time?</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1261407540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, did this lawyer just fall off the turnip truck or what?  Hate to tell you this Skippy Suit, but this ain't the first time Big Daddy Desktop has been in a courtroom for shit like this.</p><p>Microsoft definition of being "respectful" is cutting a check large enough to be bought out or go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , did this lawyer just fall off the turnip truck or what ?
Hate to tell you this Skippy Suit , but this ai n't the first time Big Daddy Desktop has been in a courtroom for shit like this.Microsoft definition of being " respectful " is cutting a check large enough to be bought out or go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, did this lawyer just fall off the turnip truck or what?
Hate to tell you this Skippy Suit, but this ain't the first time Big Daddy Desktop has been in a courtroom for shit like this.Microsoft definition of being "respectful" is cutting a check large enough to be bought out or go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511482</id>
	<title>Dupe ???</title>
	<author>Hamsterdan</author>
	<datestamp>1261407480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't find it, but hasn't this been discussed earlier?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't find it , but has n't this been discussed earlier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't find it, but hasn't this been discussed earlier?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512256</id>
	<title>Re:Must wait to have all info</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1261412160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must be having a case of the Mondays.  It took me WAY too long to get that joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be having a case of the Mondays .
It took me WAY too long to get that joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must be having a case of the Mondays.
It took me WAY too long to get that joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512794</id>
	<title>Re:From TFA</title>
	<author>rrhubart</author>
	<datestamp>1261414920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, they figured Microsoft would sue them as soon as the Trademark was completed, so they are trying to get on the record first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , they figured Microsoft would sue them as soon as the Trademark was completed , so they are trying to get on the record first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, they figured Microsoft would sue them as soon as the Trademark was completed, so they are trying to get on the record first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512504</id>
	<title>Re:fp</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1261413420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you suggesting a new name for Bing -- perhaps "Bung"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you suggesting a new name for Bing -- perhaps " Bung " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you suggesting a new name for Bing -- perhaps "Bung"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513208</id>
	<title>Another one i never heard of</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261416480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like these lawsuits for trademark and patent infringement are a good way to advertise. Take Microsoft to court and people notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like these lawsuits for trademark and patent infringement are a good way to advertise .
Take Microsoft to court and people notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like these lawsuits for trademark and patent infringement are a good way to advertise.
Take Microsoft to court and people notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511640</id>
	<title>Bing!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261408560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they shout out Bing! they should be alright in Balmer's book.<br> <br>
I can't verify if <a href="http://mashable.com/2009/12/19/bing-youre-fired/" title="mashable.com" rel="nofollow">this video</a> [mashable.com] is true, but if it is... Damn, that shows quite a temper right there.<br>
Anyone want to hazard a guess for its authenticity?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they shout out Bing !
they should be alright in Balmer 's book .
I ca n't verify if this video [ mashable.com ] is true , but if it is... Damn , that shows quite a temper right there .
Anyone want to hazard a guess for its authenticity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they shout out Bing!
they should be alright in Balmer's book.
I can't verify if this video [mashable.com] is true, but if it is... Damn, that shows quite a temper right there.
Anyone want to hazard a guess for its authenticity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512148</id>
	<title>Ask Homer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft 'always respect[s] trademarks and other people's intellectual property, and look[s] forward to the next steps in the judicial process</p></div><p>Yeah, right. Just ask Homer Simpson about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 'always respect [ s ] trademarks and other people 's intellectual property , and look [ s ] forward to the next steps in the judicial processYeah , right .
Just ask Homer Simpson about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft 'always respect[s] trademarks and other people's intellectual property, and look[s] forward to the next steps in the judicial processYeah, right.
Just ask Homer Simpson about it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30516346</id>
	<title>Re:bing.biz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261387560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hmm. Microsoft got bing.com a while ago</p><p>WHOIS results for bing.com<br>Created on..............: 1996-01-28.</p><p>The Wayback Machine shows the first Microsoft Bing.com site (Coming Soon!) in 2003.</p></div><p>That Coming soon! page was almost certainly not Microsofts.</p><p>In addition, bing.com has hosted a "Personal Notification Device" company.  A "New company is formed with a great new product" page (at least 2, actually), "This domain for sale" page, and a postal mail companies page.  All before 2008.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
Microsoft got bing.com a while agoWHOIS results for bing.comCreated on.............. : 1996-01-28.The Wayback Machine shows the first Microsoft Bing.com site ( Coming Soon !
) in 2003.That Coming soon !
page was almost certainly not Microsofts.In addition , bing.com has hosted a " Personal Notification Device " company .
A " New company is formed with a great new product " page ( at least 2 , actually ) , " This domain for sale " page , and a postal mail companies page .
All before 2008 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
Microsoft got bing.com a while agoWHOIS results for bing.comCreated on..............: 1996-01-28.The Wayback Machine shows the first Microsoft Bing.com site (Coming Soon!
) in 2003.That Coming soon!
page was almost certainly not Microsofts.In addition, bing.com has hosted a "Personal Notification Device" company.
A "New company is formed with a great new product" page (at least 2, actually), "This domain for sale" page, and a postal mail companies page.
All before 2008.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515078</id>
	<title>Oh the ironing!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261424700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't Microsoft have Goog.... I mean 'Bing'ed 'Bing' first to see if someone else was already using it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't Microsoft have Goog.... I mean 'Bing'ed 'Bing ' first to see if someone else was already using it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't Microsoft have Goog.... I mean 'Bing'ed 'Bing' first to see if someone else was already using it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514850</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be a good thing?</title>
	<author>SgtChaireBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1261423800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I alone thinking that if this company wins their suit maybe Microsoft would actually rename their search engine to something not as cringeworthy?</p></div><p>
You're both alone and wrong.   It's just a buggy, ad-ridden front end for the <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/" title="wolframalpha.com">WolframAlpha</a> [wolframalpha.com] search engine and serves as a distraction from what Microsoft Activist Icahn and his attack dogs started doing to Yahoo.
</p><p>
After re-branding Live Search as "Bing", to leave the baggage associated with the old name, they also struck a deal so that <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/what-wolfram-alpha-really-did-this-summer-struck-a-deal-with-bing/" title="techcrunch.com">Bing is a front-end for Wolfram Alpha</a> [techcrunch.com] plus whatever Live Search might have had. So to get those results unmodified, you don't have to go through M$ filter, you can go straight to <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/" title="wolframalpha.com">WolframAlpha</a> [wolframalpha.com] skipping the middle man.  Not at all difficult.
</p><p>
There are even meta-search engines that can cross-search both Google and Wolfram Alpha for you. For Firefox there is the <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/12285" title="mozilla.org">Goofram add-on</a> [mozilla.org] which lets you search both at the same time. If you're on Opera, Safari or Chromium, there are also search customization options there, too
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I alone thinking that if this company wins their suit maybe Microsoft would actually rename their search engine to something not as cringeworthy ?
You 're both alone and wrong .
It 's just a buggy , ad-ridden front end for the WolframAlpha [ wolframalpha.com ] search engine and serves as a distraction from what Microsoft Activist Icahn and his attack dogs started doing to Yahoo .
After re-branding Live Search as " Bing " , to leave the baggage associated with the old name , they also struck a deal so that Bing is a front-end for Wolfram Alpha [ techcrunch.com ] plus whatever Live Search might have had .
So to get those results unmodified , you do n't have to go through M $ filter , you can go straight to WolframAlpha [ wolframalpha.com ] skipping the middle man .
Not at all difficult .
There are even meta-search engines that can cross-search both Google and Wolfram Alpha for you .
For Firefox there is the Goofram add-on [ mozilla.org ] which lets you search both at the same time .
If you 're on Opera , Safari or Chromium , there are also search customization options there , too</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I alone thinking that if this company wins their suit maybe Microsoft would actually rename their search engine to something not as cringeworthy?
You're both alone and wrong.
It's just a buggy, ad-ridden front end for the WolframAlpha [wolframalpha.com] search engine and serves as a distraction from what Microsoft Activist Icahn and his attack dogs started doing to Yahoo.
After re-branding Live Search as "Bing", to leave the baggage associated with the old name, they also struck a deal so that Bing is a front-end for Wolfram Alpha [techcrunch.com] plus whatever Live Search might have had.
So to get those results unmodified, you don't have to go through M$ filter, you can go straight to WolframAlpha [wolframalpha.com] skipping the middle man.
Not at all difficult.
There are even meta-search engines that can cross-search both Google and Wolfram Alpha for you.
For Firefox there is the Goofram add-on [mozilla.org] which lets you search both at the same time.
If you're on Opera, Safari or Chromium, there are also search customization options there, too

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512124</id>
	<title>Wouldn't it be a good thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I alone thinking that if this company wins their suit maybe Microsoft would actually rename their search engine to something not as cringeworthy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I alone thinking that if this company wins their suit maybe Microsoft would actually rename their search engine to something not as cringeworthy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I alone thinking that if this company wins their suit maybe Microsoft would actually rename their search engine to something not as cringeworthy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512538</id>
	<title>Bing!</title>
	<author>multipart/mixed</author>
	<datestamp>1261413600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, I see you have the lawyer that sues Bing! He is my favorite. You see, he works on a contingency basis and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , I see you have the lawyer that sues Bing !
He is my favorite .
You see , he works on a contingency basis and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, I see you have the lawyer that sues Bing!
He is my favorite.
You see, he works on a contingency basis and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30517924</id>
	<title>Re:Trapped!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261396080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but  BLING! is now a household name for people too anally retentive to think of any product not Microsoft oriented. It is therefore, a name to be prized, and previous actions like <a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/business/247483\_msftdefender08.html" title="seattlepi.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [seattlepi.com] or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_vs.\_MikeRoweSoft" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this</a> [wikipedia.org] should tell you that Microsoft will go to great lengths to respect other people's intellectual property.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but BLING !
is now a household name for people too anally retentive to think of any product not Microsoft oriented .
It is therefore , a name to be prized , and previous actions like this [ seattlepi.com ] or this [ wikipedia.org ] should tell you that Microsoft will go to great lengths to respect other people 's intellectual property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but  BLING!
is now a household name for people too anally retentive to think of any product not Microsoft oriented.
It is therefore, a name to be prized, and previous actions like this [seattlepi.com] or this [wikipedia.org] should tell you that Microsoft will go to great lengths to respect other people's intellectual property.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513692</id>
	<title>Re:Trapped!</title>
	<author>Gouru</author>
	<datestamp>1261418700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An unregistered Trademark is usually enforcable only within a relatively small geographic area. They were not marketting their brand nationally, in fact , their brand has nothing to do with search or web design, their brand is not registered, in short, it fails virtually all of the tests needed to enforce an unregistered trademark.</p><p>This truly feels like yet another attempt to get free cash from Microsoft. IMHO they have a better chance of getting that cash from Bing Cashback purchases then from the lawsuit...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An unregistered Trademark is usually enforcable only within a relatively small geographic area .
They were not marketting their brand nationally , in fact , their brand has nothing to do with search or web design , their brand is not registered , in short , it fails virtually all of the tests needed to enforce an unregistered trademark.This truly feels like yet another attempt to get free cash from Microsoft .
IMHO they have a better chance of getting that cash from Bing Cashback purchases then from the lawsuit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An unregistered Trademark is usually enforcable only within a relatively small geographic area.
They were not marketting their brand nationally, in fact , their brand has nothing to do with search or web design, their brand is not registered, in short, it fails virtually all of the tests needed to enforce an unregistered trademark.This truly feels like yet another attempt to get free cash from Microsoft.
IMHO they have a better chance of getting that cash from Bing Cashback purchases then from the lawsuit...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30516630</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261389060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as the rules are in place, may as well use them against them people who would abuse them. That's the whole point of the GPL. It's nothing without copyright law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the rules are in place , may as well use them against them people who would abuse them .
That 's the whole point of the GPL .
It 's nothing without copyright law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the rules are in place, may as well use them against them people who would abuse them.
That's the whole point of the GPL.
It's nothing without copyright law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515576</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be a good thing?</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1261427040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was told by a Microsoft engineer who should know that the Bing name was picked specifically because it could be used as a verb (as in, "I binged Nancy before I asked her out."). I had just made a joke on the (assumed) unfortunate closeness in sound of binging someone and banging someone. An awkward silence ensued, and he told me that was a feature, not a bug.</p><p>All I can say is that they may not get out much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was told by a Microsoft engineer who should know that the Bing name was picked specifically because it could be used as a verb ( as in , " I binged Nancy before I asked her out. " ) .
I had just made a joke on the ( assumed ) unfortunate closeness in sound of binging someone and banging someone .
An awkward silence ensued , and he told me that was a feature , not a bug.All I can say is that they may not get out much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was told by a Microsoft engineer who should know that the Bing name was picked specifically because it could be used as a verb (as in, "I binged Nancy before I asked her out.").
I had just made a joke on the (assumed) unfortunate closeness in sound of binging someone and banging someone.
An awkward silence ensued, and he told me that was a feature, not a bug.All I can say is that they may not get out much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511604</id>
	<title>Bing? (take two)</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1261408260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ned: Phil?<br>Phil: Ned?<br>[Punches Ned in the face]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ned : Phil ? Phil : Ned ?
[ Punches Ned in the face ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ned: Phil?Phil: Ned?
[Punches Ned in the face]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513930</id>
	<title>bing is not google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261419780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>troublesome, they chose a recursive name that ends on ING<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. for BING Is Not Google. 26 possibilities for that name. They should've gone for KING (haha), YING, or ZING. Or possibly DING! Here are your search results.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>troublesome , they chose a recursive name that ends on ING .. for BING Is Not Google .
26 possibilities for that name .
They should 've gone for KING ( haha ) , YING , or ZING .
Or possibly DING !
Here are your search results .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>troublesome, they chose a recursive name that ends on ING .. for BING Is Not Google.
26 possibilities for that name.
They should've gone for KING (haha), YING, or ZING.
Or possibly DING!
Here are your search results.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511506</id>
	<title>This will be big</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>failed business from Missouri suing failed search engine for mostly unknown brand of zero value.</htmltext>
<tokenext>failed business from Missouri suing failed search engine for mostly unknown brand of zero value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>failed business from Missouri suing failed search engine for mostly unknown brand of zero value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30521144</id>
	<title>Re:Trapped!</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1261425180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a fan of IP -- it's like patenting math, and many trademarks are not far behind. But, Microsoft has used it's legal muscle and deep pockets to outlast others who have had "valid" (in the sense of legally valid in this system) trademarks and IP patents.</p><p>MS wants to have their cake and eat it, too. OTOH they patent things like using a password to get administrative authority (sounds like <b>sudo</b> to me), on the other hand, their SQLServer DB was so similar to Sybase that use could actually use the same drivers.</p><p>The reason this company waited is to get more money from MS. MS knows they went out on a limb on this.</p><p>IMO, MS is reaping what they sow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a fan of IP -- it 's like patenting math , and many trademarks are not far behind .
But , Microsoft has used it 's legal muscle and deep pockets to outlast others who have had " valid " ( in the sense of legally valid in this system ) trademarks and IP patents.MS wants to have their cake and eat it , too .
OTOH they patent things like using a password to get administrative authority ( sounds like sudo to me ) , on the other hand , their SQLServer DB was so similar to Sybase that use could actually use the same drivers.The reason this company waited is to get more money from MS. MS knows they went out on a limb on this.IMO , MS is reaping what they sow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a fan of IP -- it's like patenting math, and many trademarks are not far behind.
But, Microsoft has used it's legal muscle and deep pockets to outlast others who have had "valid" (in the sense of legally valid in this system) trademarks and IP patents.MS wants to have their cake and eat it, too.
OTOH they patent things like using a password to get administrative authority (sounds like sudo to me), on the other hand, their SQLServer DB was so similar to Sybase that use could actually use the same drivers.The reason this company waited is to get more money from MS. MS knows they went out on a limb on this.IMO, MS is reaping what they sow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511540</id>
	<title>I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what does the Crosby family have to say about this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what does the Crosby family have to say about this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what does the Crosby family have to say about this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512146</id>
	<title>Re:First time?</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1261411440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All right boys, buy him out!</p><p>*smash, crash, crush*</p><p>Mr. Simpson, you didn't think I got this rich by writing checks did you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All right boys , buy him out !
* smash , crash , crush * Mr. Simpson , you did n't think I got this rich by writing checks did you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All right boys, buy him out!
*smash, crash, crush*Mr. Simpson, you didn't think I got this rich by writing checks did you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513354</id>
	<title>Re:From TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261417320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Trademark registration is expensive and takes years to complete</p></div></blockquote><p>Not true at all. Speaking from experience, it only takes some time (to do a rudimentary search), a few hundred dollars, a moderately simple form, and a postage stamp or two.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trademark registration is expensive and takes years to completeNot true at all .
Speaking from experience , it only takes some time ( to do a rudimentary search ) , a few hundred dollars , a moderately simple form , and a postage stamp or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trademark registration is expensive and takes years to completeNot true at all.
Speaking from experience, it only takes some time (to do a rudimentary search), a few hundred dollars, a moderately simple form, and a postage stamp or two.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512596</id>
	<title>Questionable.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1261413900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, I think it's too bad for these guys. If they felt they had such a distinctive identity they should have trademarked it sooner. They had 9 years to do so and didn't bother until Microsoft introduced their rebranded search engine. Being in the design industry myself, we've recommended clients trademark their identities a number of times. These guys, working in the same space should have realized the same for themselves.</p><p>They don't even come up in the first 10 pages of a Google search so they apparently didn't bother doing much to promote themselves. Although the results are laden with references to the search engine I was able to find a couple of businesses in there, two examples being The Bing Group and Bing's Bakery.</p><p>Then there's the fact that the search engine and this company don't inhabit the same space at all, so whether or not they had been trademarked would possibly have been irrelevant. That said, anyone who knows about the search engine will probably make the connection when they see the name. Whether it will hurt them in any way is debatable, at worst it will be a conversation piece which will be easily explained away especially since they've linked it to the concept of a lightbulb. The problem is that this company doesn't even use their own identity consistently and the Guardian doesn't even get their name right. Their own site refers to the company as Bing! Information Design, but then elsewhere on the site they refer to themselves as Bing!</p><p>Considering that they're designers they're likely Apple devotees. They might feel wronged, but I bet they're relishing the opportunity to take on evil Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I think it 's too bad for these guys .
If they felt they had such a distinctive identity they should have trademarked it sooner .
They had 9 years to do so and did n't bother until Microsoft introduced their rebranded search engine .
Being in the design industry myself , we 've recommended clients trademark their identities a number of times .
These guys , working in the same space should have realized the same for themselves.They do n't even come up in the first 10 pages of a Google search so they apparently did n't bother doing much to promote themselves .
Although the results are laden with references to the search engine I was able to find a couple of businesses in there , two examples being The Bing Group and Bing 's Bakery.Then there 's the fact that the search engine and this company do n't inhabit the same space at all , so whether or not they had been trademarked would possibly have been irrelevant .
That said , anyone who knows about the search engine will probably make the connection when they see the name .
Whether it will hurt them in any way is debatable , at worst it will be a conversation piece which will be easily explained away especially since they 've linked it to the concept of a lightbulb .
The problem is that this company does n't even use their own identity consistently and the Guardian does n't even get their name right .
Their own site refers to the company as Bing !
Information Design , but then elsewhere on the site they refer to themselves as Bing ! Considering that they 're designers they 're likely Apple devotees .
They might feel wronged , but I bet they 're relishing the opportunity to take on evil Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I think it's too bad for these guys.
If they felt they had such a distinctive identity they should have trademarked it sooner.
They had 9 years to do so and didn't bother until Microsoft introduced their rebranded search engine.
Being in the design industry myself, we've recommended clients trademark their identities a number of times.
These guys, working in the same space should have realized the same for themselves.They don't even come up in the first 10 pages of a Google search so they apparently didn't bother doing much to promote themselves.
Although the results are laden with references to the search engine I was able to find a couple of businesses in there, two examples being The Bing Group and Bing's Bakery.Then there's the fact that the search engine and this company don't inhabit the same space at all, so whether or not they had been trademarked would possibly have been irrelevant.
That said, anyone who knows about the search engine will probably make the connection when they see the name.
Whether it will hurt them in any way is debatable, at worst it will be a conversation piece which will be easily explained away especially since they've linked it to the concept of a lightbulb.
The problem is that this company doesn't even use their own identity consistently and the Guardian doesn't even get their name right.
Their own site refers to the company as Bing!
Information Design, but then elsewhere on the site they refer to themselves as Bing!Considering that they're designers they're likely Apple devotees.
They might feel wronged, but I bet they're relishing the opportunity to take on evil Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511476</id>
	<title>I only every think of one thing with Bing......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lauren:<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSNK-9v7\_JI</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lauren : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = qSNK-9v7 \ _JI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lauren:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSNK-9v7\_JI</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513734</id>
	<title>Re:Apple</title>
	<author>Zorque</author>
	<datestamp>1261418940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naming your company after a common object is hardly stealing, I don't know where you would even have gotten that idea. You're not an Apple Records attorney, are you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Naming your company after a common object is hardly stealing , I do n't know where you would even have gotten that idea .
You 're not an Apple Records attorney , are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naming your company after a common object is hardly stealing, I don't know where you would even have gotten that idea.
You're not an Apple Records attorney, are you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515028</id>
	<title>I thought Ned Ryerson held the Bing copyright</title>
	<author>srobert</author>
	<datestamp>1261424520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ned. Ryerson! Needlenose Ned, Ned the Head, come on buddy, Case Western High. Ned Ryerson, I did the whistling bellybutton trick at the high school talent show. Bing! Ned Ryerson, got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate. Bing again! Ned Ryerson, I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times til you told me not to anymore."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ned .
Ryerson ! Needlenose Ned , Ned the Head , come on buddy , Case Western High .
Ned Ryerson , I did the whistling bellybutton trick at the high school talent show .
Bing ! Ned Ryerson , got the shingles real bad senior year , almost did n't graduate .
Bing again !
Ned Ryerson , I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times til you told me not to anymore .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ned.
Ryerson! Needlenose Ned, Ned the Head, come on buddy, Case Western High.
Ned Ryerson, I did the whistling bellybutton trick at the high school talent show.
Bing! Ned Ryerson, got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate.
Bing again!
Ned Ryerson, I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times til you told me not to anymore.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512150</id>
	<title>So stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So someone else too is stupid enough to choose the same stupid name, and is even stupid enough to defend that name?</p><p>Did I say stupid enough?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So someone else too is stupid enough to choose the same stupid name , and is even stupid enough to defend that name ? Did I say stupid enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So someone else too is stupid enough to choose the same stupid name, and is even stupid enough to defend that name?Did I say stupid enough?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512692</id>
	<title>Re:Trapped!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261414380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More to the point, it would be *really* hard to prove consumer confusion between a design firm and a Internet search engine, even if they were aggressively defending their trademark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , it would be * really * hard to prove consumer confusion between a design firm and a Internet search engine , even if they were aggressively defending their trademark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, it would be *really* hard to prove consumer confusion between a design firm and a Internet search engine, even if they were aggressively defending their trademark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512388</id>
	<title>Self-contradicting statement?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261412940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft legal representative Kevin Kutz states that he believes the case will be dismissed and that Microsoft 'always respect[s] trademarks [...]</p></div><p>The case being dismissed would be not respecting the trademark.</p><p>With being able to say such a soulless twisted lie right in our faces, without even twitching, I&rsquo;m sure he&rsquo;ll soon have a job in the government.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft legal representative Kevin Kutz states that he believes the case will be dismissed and that Microsoft 'always respect [ s ] trademarks [ ... ] The case being dismissed would be not respecting the trademark.With being able to say such a soulless twisted lie right in our faces , without even twitching , I    m sure he    ll soon have a job in the government .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft legal representative Kevin Kutz states that he believes the case will be dismissed and that Microsoft 'always respect[s] trademarks [...]The case being dismissed would be not respecting the trademark.With being able to say such a soulless twisted lie right in our faces, without even twitching, I’m sure he’ll soon have a job in the government.
:/
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511796</id>
	<title>Re:Trapped!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261409400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.</p></div><p>Because obtaining trademarks is costly and time-consuming, and because an unregistered trademarks is still a protected mark. This is a fairly small company who, until recently, probably found that an unregistered trademark was sufficient for them. Now that Microsoft has started using the name, they've decided they need to protect themselves further.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Aren't you obliged to protect your mark?</p></div><p>They are. They filed suit and began the process of registering their trademark. They've been using it since 2000, so they should have no problem getting the trademark, since the system is "first to use", not "first to file".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.Because obtaining trademarks is costly and time-consuming , and because an unregistered trademarks is still a protected mark .
This is a fairly small company who , until recently , probably found that an unregistered trademark was sufficient for them .
Now that Microsoft has started using the name , they 've decided they need to protect themselves further.Are n't you obliged to protect your mark ? They are .
They filed suit and began the process of registering their trademark .
They 've been using it since 2000 , so they should have no problem getting the trademark , since the system is " first to use " , not " first to file " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.Because obtaining trademarks is costly and time-consuming, and because an unregistered trademarks is still a protected mark.
This is a fairly small company who, until recently, probably found that an unregistered trademark was sufficient for them.
Now that Microsoft has started using the name, they've decided they need to protect themselves further.Aren't you obliged to protect your mark?They are.
They filed suit and began the process of registering their trademark.
They've been using it since 2000, so they should have no problem getting the trademark, since the system is "first to use", not "first to file".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511590</id>
	<title>Bing?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1261408200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ned: Phil? Hey, Phil? Phil! Phil Connors? Phil Connors, I thought that was you!<br>Phil: Hi, how you doing? Thanks for watching.<br>[Starts to walk away]<br>Ned: Hey, hey! Now, don't you tell me you don't remember me because I sure as heckfire remember you.<br>Phil: Not a chance.<br>Ned: Ned... Ryerson. "Needlenose Ned"? "Ned the Head"? C'mon, buddy. Case Western High. Ned Ryerson: I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show? Bing! Ned Ryerson: got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate? Bing, again. Ned Ryerson: I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore? Well?<br>Phil: Ned Ryerson?<br>Ned: Bing!<br>Phil: Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ned : Phil ?
Hey , Phil ?
Phil ! Phil Connors ?
Phil Connors , I thought that was you ! Phil : Hi , how you doing ?
Thanks for watching .
[ Starts to walk away ] Ned : Hey , hey !
Now , do n't you tell me you do n't remember me because I sure as heckfire remember you.Phil : Not a chance.Ned : Ned... Ryerson. " Needlenose Ned " ?
" Ned the Head " ?
C'mon , buddy .
Case Western High .
Ned Ryerson : I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show ?
Bing ! Ned Ryerson : got the shingles real bad senior year , almost did n't graduate ?
Bing , again .
Ned Ryerson : I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore ?
Well ? Phil : Ned Ryerson ? Ned : Bing ! Phil : Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ned: Phil?
Hey, Phil?
Phil! Phil Connors?
Phil Connors, I thought that was you!Phil: Hi, how you doing?
Thanks for watching.
[Starts to walk away]Ned: Hey, hey!
Now, don't you tell me you don't remember me because I sure as heckfire remember you.Phil: Not a chance.Ned: Ned... Ryerson. "Needlenose Ned"?
"Ned the Head"?
C'mon, buddy.
Case Western High.
Ned Ryerson: I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show?
Bing! Ned Ryerson: got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate?
Bing, again.
Ned Ryerson: I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple times until you told me not to anymore?
Well?Phil: Ned Ryerson?Ned: Bing!Phil: Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512752</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261414740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like Microsoft respected Lindows to the tune of $20 million.</p><p>What message am I supposed to be taking from your post? "Microsoft doesn't respect IP! They just pay massive amounts of cash for it."</p><p>Unless your "yeah, right" *wasn't* intended as sarcasm, in case I guess it all makes sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like Microsoft respected Lindows to the tune of $ 20 million.What message am I supposed to be taking from your post ?
" Microsoft does n't respect IP !
They just pay massive amounts of cash for it .
" Unless your " yeah , right " * was n't * intended as sarcasm , in case I guess it all makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like Microsoft respected Lindows to the tune of $20 million.What message am I supposed to be taking from your post?
"Microsoft doesn't respect IP!
They just pay massive amounts of cash for it.
"Unless your "yeah, right" *wasn't* intended as sarcasm, in case I guess it all makes sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511918</id>
	<title>Re:Add the E.</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1261410060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was hoping a meme would catch on, to call it "binge," but that never happened.</p></div><p>I just call it "google"...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was hoping a meme would catch on , to call it " binge , " but that never happened.I just call it " google " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was hoping a meme would catch on, to call it "binge," but that never happened.I just call it "google"...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511498</id>
	<title>From TFA</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1261407540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...a trademark application for the name was not filed [by the plaintiff] until May - when rumours about Microsoft's new product had already spread widely across the internet."</p><p>"Microsoft, meanwhile, filed its own trademark applications for the name in March - for a variety of uses, including search engine software, interface software, advertising, telecoms and for 'providing a website and website links to geographic information, map images and trip routing'."</p><p>Says it all really. This company didn't even bother trying to establish trademark rights until two months after Microsoft, after news of the new engine had leaked. This screams trademark troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...a trademark application for the name was not filed [ by the plaintiff ] until May - when rumours about Microsoft 's new product had already spread widely across the internet .
" " Microsoft , meanwhile , filed its own trademark applications for the name in March - for a variety of uses , including search engine software , interface software , advertising , telecoms and for 'providing a website and website links to geographic information , map images and trip routing' .
" Says it all really .
This company did n't even bother trying to establish trademark rights until two months after Microsoft , after news of the new engine had leaked .
This screams trademark troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...a trademark application for the name was not filed [by the plaintiff] until May - when rumours about Microsoft's new product had already spread widely across the internet.
""Microsoft, meanwhile, filed its own trademark applications for the name in March - for a variety of uses, including search engine software, interface software, advertising, telecoms and for 'providing a website and website links to geographic information, map images and trip routing'.
"Says it all really.
This company didn't even bother trying to establish trademark rights until two months after Microsoft, after news of the new engine had leaked.
This screams trademark troll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513766</id>
	<title>Re:Trapped!</title>
	<author>txwikinger-slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1261419060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.</p></div><p>It is not easy to file a law suit. It takes you away from focusing on your main business. You need to figure out if it is worth to do. You need to get some facts that you are sure that your case has merit and will not immediately thrown out. And lastly, the lawyers like to earn as much as possible<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.It is not easy to file a law suit .
It takes you away from focusing on your main business .
You need to figure out if it is worth to do .
You need to get some facts that you are sure that your case has merit and will not immediately thrown out .
And lastly , the lawyers like to earn as much as possible ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.It is not easy to file a law suit.
It takes you away from focusing on your main business.
You need to figure out if it is worth to do.
You need to get some facts that you are sure that your case has merit and will not immediately thrown out.
And lastly, the lawyers like to earn as much as possible ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30517958</id>
	<title>Re:Trapped!</title>
	<author>cdrudge</author>
	<datestamp>1261396260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Because obtaining trademarks is costly and time-consuming</p></div></blockquote><p>It's a few hundred dollars for the application fee if you do the work yourself.  If you have someone else do it, it might be a few times that in many cases.  Bing! Information Design likely spent far more working with an attorney to file this lawsuit then what it would have cost to get a trademark.  And their company has been around since 2000 according to their site, so time-consuming really wasn't a factor either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because obtaining trademarks is costly and time-consumingIt 's a few hundred dollars for the application fee if you do the work yourself .
If you have someone else do it , it might be a few times that in many cases .
Bing ! Information Design likely spent far more working with an attorney to file this lawsuit then what it would have cost to get a trademark .
And their company has been around since 2000 according to their site , so time-consuming really was n't a factor either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because obtaining trademarks is costly and time-consumingIt's a few hundred dollars for the application fee if you do the work yourself.
If you have someone else do it, it might be a few times that in many cases.
Bing! Information Design likely spent far more working with an attorney to file this lawsuit then what it would have cost to get a trademark.
And their company has been around since 2000 according to their site, so time-consuming really wasn't a factor either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30521582</id>
	<title>Re:Trapped!</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1261474740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.</p></div><p>I'm not a patent/trademark lawyer nor have I ever gone through the process but I'd imagine that if they filed it in May, they didn't get it until a few months later. Upon receiving the trademark, they then proceeded to consult a lawyer and build a case that they could take to court. All that takes a substantial amount of time. Doesn't seem to me like these guys took their time. If this was 2011, however, I'd agree with you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.I 'm not a patent/trademark lawyer nor have I ever gone through the process but I 'd imagine that if they filed it in May , they did n't get it until a few months later .
Upon receiving the trademark , they then proceeded to consult a lawyer and build a case that they could take to court .
All that takes a substantial amount of time .
Does n't seem to me like these guys took their time .
If this was 2011 , however , I 'd agree with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.I'm not a patent/trademark lawyer nor have I ever gone through the process but I'd imagine that if they filed it in May, they didn't get it until a few months later.
Upon receiving the trademark, they then proceeded to consult a lawyer and build a case that they could take to court.
All that takes a substantial amount of time.
Doesn't seem to me like these guys took their time.
If this was 2011, however, I'd agree with you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511810</id>
	<title>Re:From TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261409460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A trademark does not have to be registered to be valid. They probably registered as a first step in protecting their existing trademark because of the Microsoft rumours. Moreover, at the time of registration, Microsoft had not yet used it on any product or service, so Microsoft had no right to it even if Bing! Information Design did completely rip off the name  from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A trademark does not have to be registered to be valid .
They probably registered as a first step in protecting their existing trademark because of the Microsoft rumours .
Moreover , at the time of registration , Microsoft had not yet used it on any product or service , so Microsoft had no right to it even if Bing !
Information Design did completely rip off the name from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A trademark does not have to be registered to be valid.
They probably registered as a first step in protecting their existing trademark because of the Microsoft rumours.
Moreover, at the time of registration, Microsoft had not yet used it on any product or service, so Microsoft had no right to it even if Bing!
Information Design did completely rip off the name  from them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512678</id>
	<title>Bing! NOT EQUAL Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261414320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5 chars vs 4 chars</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 chars vs 4 chars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5 chars vs 4 chars</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515292</id>
	<title>Re:fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261425660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are other vowels that would be equally suitable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady\_Byng\_Memorial\_Trophy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Can't use "y", though</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other vowels that would be equally suitable : - ) Ca n't use " y " , though [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other vowels that would be equally suitable :-)Can't use "y", though [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512626</id>
	<title>Apple</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261414080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me. Apple Computers blatantly stole their name and logo from Apple Records. Apple Records agreed not to sue them into oblivion so long as Apple Computers promised not to get into the music business. That was nice of them.</p><p>Apple Computers did get into the music business, and are now the #1 retailer of music. Apple Records said this was a clear breach of their contract. Apple Computers replied with "get bent, and we'll do whatever the fuck we want."</p><p>Time and time again, Apple does all the evil things that Microsoft gets blasted for. Why exactly does Apple get a free pass?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me .
Apple Computers blatantly stole their name and logo from Apple Records .
Apple Records agreed not to sue them into oblivion so long as Apple Computers promised not to get into the music business .
That was nice of them.Apple Computers did get into the music business , and are now the # 1 retailer of music .
Apple Records said this was a clear breach of their contract .
Apple Computers replied with " get bent , and we 'll do whatever the fuck we want .
" Time and time again , Apple does all the evil things that Microsoft gets blasted for .
Why exactly does Apple get a free pass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me.
Apple Computers blatantly stole their name and logo from Apple Records.
Apple Records agreed not to sue them into oblivion so long as Apple Computers promised not to get into the music business.
That was nice of them.Apple Computers did get into the music business, and are now the #1 retailer of music.
Apple Records said this was a clear breach of their contract.
Apple Computers replied with "get bent, and we'll do whatever the fuck we want.
"Time and time again, Apple does all the evil things that Microsoft gets blasted for.
Why exactly does Apple get a free pass?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511682</id>
	<title>Re:From TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261408740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Says it all really. This company didn't even bother trying to establish trademark rights until two months after Microsoft, after news of the new engine had leaked. This screams trademark troll.</p></div><p>I know absolutely nothing about this case, so take my comments with as much salt as you feel necessary...</p><p>But, just to play devil's advocate...</p><p>It could also be that the company never felt the need to establish trademark rights until news of the new engine leaked.  Perhaps this Bing! company was fairly unique in the area it does business in...  And if anyone said Bing! they thought immediately of this company...  But with Microsoft's re-branded search engine folks now think of Microsoft instead of this Bing! company.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Says it all really .
This company did n't even bother trying to establish trademark rights until two months after Microsoft , after news of the new engine had leaked .
This screams trademark troll.I know absolutely nothing about this case , so take my comments with as much salt as you feel necessary...But , just to play devil 's advocate...It could also be that the company never felt the need to establish trademark rights until news of the new engine leaked .
Perhaps this Bing !
company was fairly unique in the area it does business in... And if anyone said Bing !
they thought immediately of this company... But with Microsoft 's re-branded search engine folks now think of Microsoft instead of this Bing !
company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Says it all really.
This company didn't even bother trying to establish trademark rights until two months after Microsoft, after news of the new engine had leaked.
This screams trademark troll.I know absolutely nothing about this case, so take my comments with as much salt as you feel necessary...But, just to play devil's advocate...It could also be that the company never felt the need to establish trademark rights until news of the new engine leaked.
Perhaps this Bing!
company was fairly unique in the area it does business in...  And if anyone said Bing!
they thought immediately of this company...  But with Microsoft's re-branded search engine folks now think of Microsoft instead of this Bing!
company.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511502</id>
	<title>Different fields</title>
	<author>l2718</author>
	<datestamp>1261407600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless they are in the search-engine business, I'm not sure they have a trademark claim even if they were first.  There is little likelihood of confusion after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they are in the search-engine business , I 'm not sure they have a trademark claim even if they were first .
There is little likelihood of confusion after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they are in the search-engine business, I'm not sure they have a trademark claim even if they were first.
There is little likelihood of confusion after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513788</id>
	<title>Re:More</title>
	<author>Warhawke</author>
	<datestamp>1261419120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can imagine... all of that hunger and no brains to be found anywhere!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine... all of that hunger and no brains to be found anywhere !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine... all of that hunger and no brains to be found anywhere!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512106</id>
	<title>Re:Must wait to have all info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not good with decisions.  How about a sarcastic comment?<br>-Chandler Bing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not good with decisions .
How about a sarcastic comment ? -Chandler Bing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not good with decisions.
How about a sarcastic comment?-Chandler Bing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512092</id>
	<title>More</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hear Zombie Bing Crosby is none too pleased, either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear Zombie Bing Crosby is none too pleased , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear Zombie Bing Crosby is none too pleased, either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514526</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be a good thing?</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1261422360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Am I alone thinking that if this company wins their suit maybe Microsoft would actually rename their search engine to something not as cringeworthy?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
x billion in Microsoft back account says that they won't rename their search engine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I alone thinking that if this company wins their suit maybe Microsoft would actually rename their search engine to something not as cringeworthy ?
x billion in Microsoft back account says that they wo n't rename their search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I alone thinking that if this company wins their suit maybe Microsoft would actually rename their search engine to something not as cringeworthy?
x billion in Microsoft back account says that they won't rename their search engine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513430</id>
	<title>Re:Apple</title>
	<author>stormy\_petral</author>
	<datestamp>1261417560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple got into the music business alright, some 25 YEARS after originally taking on the Apple name for a tiny garage-based company in a business that at the time seemed very unrelated to selling Beatles music. And ultimately Apple Computer PAID an undisclosed sum (translation: a boatload of cash) for the right to use the name in music marketing. Apple and Apple did have an agreement prior to the most recent one, its just that Apple Comp eventually grew out of it, and it had to be settled again, and indeed it was.
<br>
<br>
Actually, Apple DID grab a very related trademark: the iCal name was already in use for some time by another software calendar maker, Brown Bear software. The Brown Bear software site now explicitly states <a href="http://www.brownbearsw.com/ical/icalfaq.html" title="brownbearsw.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.brownbearsw.com/ical/icalfaq.html</a> [brownbearsw.com] that Apple is using the iCal mark by license, and brownbear is still selling their own product with the iCal name. All without benefit of any headline lawsuit that I ever saw.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple got into the music business alright , some 25 YEARS after originally taking on the Apple name for a tiny garage-based company in a business that at the time seemed very unrelated to selling Beatles music .
And ultimately Apple Computer PAID an undisclosed sum ( translation : a boatload of cash ) for the right to use the name in music marketing .
Apple and Apple did have an agreement prior to the most recent one , its just that Apple Comp eventually grew out of it , and it had to be settled again , and indeed it was .
Actually , Apple DID grab a very related trademark : the iCal name was already in use for some time by another software calendar maker , Brown Bear software .
The Brown Bear software site now explicitly states http : //www.brownbearsw.com/ical/icalfaq.html [ brownbearsw.com ] that Apple is using the iCal mark by license , and brownbear is still selling their own product with the iCal name .
All without benefit of any headline lawsuit that I ever saw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple got into the music business alright, some 25 YEARS after originally taking on the Apple name for a tiny garage-based company in a business that at the time seemed very unrelated to selling Beatles music.
And ultimately Apple Computer PAID an undisclosed sum (translation: a boatload of cash) for the right to use the name in music marketing.
Apple and Apple did have an agreement prior to the most recent one, its just that Apple Comp eventually grew out of it, and it had to be settled again, and indeed it was.
Actually, Apple DID grab a very related trademark: the iCal name was already in use for some time by another software calendar maker, Brown Bear software.
The Brown Bear software site now explicitly states http://www.brownbearsw.com/ical/icalfaq.html [brownbearsw.com] that Apple is using the iCal mark by license, and brownbear is still selling their own product with the iCal name.
All without benefit of any headline lawsuit that I ever saw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512708</id>
	<title>Re:bing.biz</title>
	<author>txsable</author>
	<datestamp>1261414500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft did not own bing.com until March 4, 2009 when the domain ownership changed from "Davryn Pty Ltd" in Melbourne, Australia to Microsoft.  Since 2002 the name bing.com has had several owners, including some guy in Michigan, someone in Denver; Palo Alto, CA; was transferred to an Australian company in 2007 until MS bought it in 2009. So no, Microsoft does not have long-standing claims on the Bing name, at least based on their domain registration.</p><p><i>(Reference: Domaintools.com Whois History records).</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft did not own bing.com until March 4 , 2009 when the domain ownership changed from " Davryn Pty Ltd " in Melbourne , Australia to Microsoft .
Since 2002 the name bing.com has had several owners , including some guy in Michigan , someone in Denver ; Palo Alto , CA ; was transferred to an Australian company in 2007 until MS bought it in 2009 .
So no , Microsoft does not have long-standing claims on the Bing name , at least based on their domain registration .
( Reference : Domaintools.com Whois History records ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft did not own bing.com until March 4, 2009 when the domain ownership changed from "Davryn Pty Ltd" in Melbourne, Australia to Microsoft.
Since 2002 the name bing.com has had several owners, including some guy in Michigan, someone in Denver; Palo Alto, CA; was transferred to an Australian company in 2007 until MS bought it in 2009.
So no, Microsoft does not have long-standing claims on the Bing name, at least based on their domain registration.
(Reference: Domaintools.com Whois History records).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515314</id>
	<title>Re:Apple</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1261425780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Apple Computer paid Apple Records some $500M or so to buy the trademark rights from the record company in 2007.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple Computer paid Apple Records some $ 500M or so to buy the trademark rights from the record company in 2007 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Apple Computer paid Apple Records some $500M or so to buy the trademark rights from the record company in 2007.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511434</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>suck my cock and eat my asshole!</htmltext>
<tokenext>suck my cock and eat my asshole !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suck my cock and eat my asshole!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512394</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, right.</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1261412940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;who eventually sold the Lindows trademark to Microsoft for $20 million.</p><p>How horrible. 20 million!</p><p>Sigh, I love how<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is anti IP until it involves MS, then its all "WE MUST PROTECT COPYRIGHT/TRADEMAKRS/PATENTS AT ALL COSTS."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; who eventually sold the Lindows trademark to Microsoft for $ 20 million.How horrible .
20 million ! Sigh , I love how / .
is anti IP until it involves MS , then its all " WE MUST PROTECT COPYRIGHT/TRADEMAKRS/PATENTS AT ALL COSTS .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;who eventually sold the Lindows trademark to Microsoft for $20 million.How horrible.
20 million!Sigh, I love how /.
is anti IP until it involves MS, then its all "WE MUST PROTECT COPYRIGHT/TRADEMAKRS/PATENTS AT ALL COSTS.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513098</id>
	<title>Re:Apple</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1261416120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well in that case the trademark holder was an evil record company, not a friendly design firm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well in that case the trademark holder was an evil record company , not a friendly design firm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well in that case the trademark holder was an evil record company, not a friendly design firm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514878</id>
	<title>Re:fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261423920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bungholio!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bungholio !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bungholio!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511546</id>
	<title>Patent Application Filings</title>
	<author>srollyson</author>
	<datestamp>1261407840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe Microsoft's going to win this one. From the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>However, a trademark application for the name was not filed until May - when rumours about Microsoft's new product had already spread widely across the internet.</p><p>Microsoft, meanwhile, filed its own trademark applications for the name in March - for a variety of uses, including search engine software, interface software, advertising, telecoms and for "providing a website and website links to geographic information, map images and trip routing".</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe Microsoft 's going to win this one .
From the article : However , a trademark application for the name was not filed until May - when rumours about Microsoft 's new product had already spread widely across the internet.Microsoft , meanwhile , filed its own trademark applications for the name in March - for a variety of uses , including search engine software , interface software , advertising , telecoms and for " providing a website and website links to geographic information , map images and trip routing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe Microsoft's going to win this one.
From the article:However, a trademark application for the name was not filed until May - when rumours about Microsoft's new product had already spread widely across the internet.Microsoft, meanwhile, filed its own trademark applications for the name in March - for a variety of uses, including search engine software, interface software, advertising, telecoms and for "providing a website and website links to geographic information, map images and trip routing". 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512914</id>
	<title>After Lindows, why not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261415400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After Lindows, why not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After Lindows , why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After Lindows, why not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511802</id>
	<title>Have you never seen a good idea?</title>
	<author>athowell</author>
	<datestamp>1261409460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen sites with a design I liked and used a similar idea.. is this wrong?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen sites with a design I liked and used a similar idea.. is this wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen sites with a design I liked and used a similar idea.. is this wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511986</id>
	<title>obviously not copied ..</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1261410420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing! and bing(TM)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing !
and bing ( TM ) .. : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing!
and bing(TM) .. :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512068</id>
	<title>Re:Trapped!</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1261410840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are required to protect your trademark but the two companies have the trademark for different items.<br>
THe company is sueing now because the amount of advertising Microsoft has put into the search engine Bing is causing confusion with the customers of the company that is sueing Bing.  The time of the confusion is what would matter for the start of the lawsuit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are required to protect your trademark but the two companies have the trademark for different items .
THe company is sueing now because the amount of advertising Microsoft has put into the search engine Bing is causing confusion with the customers of the company that is sueing Bing .
The time of the confusion is what would matter for the start of the lawsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are required to protect your trademark but the two companies have the trademark for different items.
THe company is sueing now because the amount of advertising Microsoft has put into the search engine Bing is causing confusion with the customers of the company that is sueing Bing.
The time of the confusion is what would matter for the start of the lawsuit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511512</id>
	<title>Add the E.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was hoping a meme would catch on, to call it "binge," but that never happened.  Maybe they should just add the E themselves, to avoid the trademark dispute.  (Yeah, I know, the trademark claim is incredibly weak, but I can dream.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was hoping a meme would catch on , to call it " binge , " but that never happened .
Maybe they should just add the E themselves , to avoid the trademark dispute .
( Yeah , I know , the trademark claim is incredibly weak , but I can dream .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was hoping a meme would catch on, to call it "binge," but that never happened.
Maybe they should just add the E themselves, to avoid the trademark dispute.
(Yeah, I know, the trademark claim is incredibly weak, but I can dream.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515070</id>
	<title>Re:fp</title>
	<author>g0dsp33d</author>
	<datestamp>1261424700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bung is the past tense, as in, I really Bunged up that search. Bettered Google it next time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bung is the past tense , as in , I really Bunged up that search .
Bettered Google it next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bung is the past tense, as in, I really Bunged up that search.
Bettered Google it next time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470</id>
	<title>Trapped!</title>
	<author>HNS-I</author>
	<datestamp>1261407420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.<p><div class="quote"><p>However, a trademark application for the name was not filed until May - when rumours about Microsoft's new product had already spread widely across the internet.
<br>
Microsoft, meanwhile, filed its own trademark applications for the name in March - for a variety of uses, including search engine software, interface software, advertising, telecoms and for "providing a website and website links to geographic information, map images and trip routing".</p></div><p>Aren't you obliged to protect your mark? Seems to me they have nothing on MS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.However , a trademark application for the name was not filed until May - when rumours about Microsoft 's new product had already spread widely across the internet .
Microsoft , meanwhile , filed its own trademark applications for the name in March - for a variety of uses , including search engine software , interface software , advertising , telecoms and for " providing a website and website links to geographic information , map images and trip routing " .Are n't you obliged to protect your mark ?
Seems to me they have nothing on MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why people always start claiming their rights so late.However, a trademark application for the name was not filed until May - when rumours about Microsoft's new product had already spread widely across the internet.
Microsoft, meanwhile, filed its own trademark applications for the name in March - for a variety of uses, including search engine software, interface software, advertising, telecoms and for "providing a website and website links to geographic information, map images and trip routing".Aren't you obliged to protect your mark?
Seems to me they have nothing on MS.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514474</id>
	<title>Re:Wouldn't it be a good thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261422180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I'm thinking this might be an occasion for Microsoft to hire Lionel Hutz for the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 'm thinking this might be an occasion for Microsoft to hire Lionel Hutz for the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I'm thinking this might be an occasion for Microsoft to hire Lionel Hutz for the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30516250</id>
	<title>Re:fp</title>
	<author>scalpod</author>
	<datestamp>1261387140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's brown and sounds like a bell?

BUNG!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's brown and sounds like a bell ?
BUNG !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's brown and sounds like a bell?
BUNG!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511460</id>
	<title>Must wait to have all info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I reserve my opinion until Mat Perry's declarations on the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I reserve my opinion until Mat Perry 's declarations on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I reserve my opinion until Mat Perry's declarations on the subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512674</id>
	<title>Hopefully MS fights it to the death</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1261414320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since it is such an obvious case, it is clear that MS's only motivation to settle would be to avoid costs.  Hopefully, MS sees the moral hazard in encouraging such blatant criminal behavior, and instead decides to counter sue.</p><p>The very first complaint filed should be against the plaintiff's attorney, for failing to do due diligence.  (This is a law in most states, I swear.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it is such an obvious case , it is clear that MS 's only motivation to settle would be to avoid costs .
Hopefully , MS sees the moral hazard in encouraging such blatant criminal behavior , and instead decides to counter sue.The very first complaint filed should be against the plaintiff 's attorney , for failing to do due diligence .
( This is a law in most states , I swear .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it is such an obvious case, it is clear that MS's only motivation to settle would be to avoid costs.
Hopefully, MS sees the moral hazard in encouraging such blatant criminal behavior, and instead decides to counter sue.The very first complaint filed should be against the plaintiff's attorney, for failing to do due diligence.
(This is a law in most states, I swear.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514478</id>
	<title>One word</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1261422180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft 'always respect[s] trademarks and other people's intellectual property,</p></div> </blockquote><p>Stacker.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 'always respect [ s ] trademarks and other people 's intellectual property , Stacker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft 'always respect[s] trademarks and other people's intellectual property, Stacker.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511568</id>
	<title>bing.biz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm. Microsoft got bing.com a while ago</p><p>WHOIS results for bing.com<br>Created on..............: 1996-01-28.</p><p>The Wayback Machine shows the first Microsoft Bing.com site (Coming Soon!) in 2003.</p><p>Now, Bing! is Bing.biz which is registererd (in Madeira, Portugal)<br>Domain Registration Date:                    Wed Nov 07 00:01:00 GMT 2001</p><p>and it says ion the web site</p><p>Bing! is a small design firm started in 2000 in St. Louis, Mo.</p><p>So, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but it looks to me that Microsoft started thinking about using this name back in 1996. If they didn't actually start using it until 2003, they will probably have to settle. If they did something back in 1996, as long as it was public, and they kept records, Bing! will lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
Microsoft got bing.com a while agoWHOIS results for bing.comCreated on.............. : 1996-01-28.The Wayback Machine shows the first Microsoft Bing.com site ( Coming Soon !
) in 2003.Now , Bing !
is Bing.biz which is registererd ( in Madeira , Portugal ) Domain Registration Date : Wed Nov 07 00 : 01 : 00 GMT 2001and it says ion the web siteBing !
is a small design firm started in 2000 in St. Louis , Mo.So , I am not a lawyer , and this is not legal advice , but it looks to me that Microsoft started thinking about using this name back in 1996 .
If they did n't actually start using it until 2003 , they will probably have to settle .
If they did something back in 1996 , as long as it was public , and they kept records , Bing !
will lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
Microsoft got bing.com a while agoWHOIS results for bing.comCreated on..............: 1996-01-28.The Wayback Machine shows the first Microsoft Bing.com site (Coming Soon!
) in 2003.Now, Bing!
is Bing.biz which is registererd (in Madeira, Portugal)Domain Registration Date:                    Wed Nov 07 00:01:00 GMT 2001and it says ion the web siteBing!
is a small design firm started in 2000 in St. Louis, Mo.So, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but it looks to me that Microsoft started thinking about using this name back in 1996.
If they didn't actually start using it until 2003, they will probably have to settle.
If they did something back in 1996, as long as it was public, and they kept records, Bing!
will lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515406</id>
	<title>Re:Trapped!</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1261426200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question is not legality it's how much will Micro$oft will pay to make it go away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is not legality it 's how much will Micro $ oft will pay to make it go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is not legality it's how much will Micro$oft will pay to make it go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512062</id>
	<title>Re:First time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As "Bill Gates" said on "The Simpsons":  "Buy him out boys!"  (and the goons then smash Homer's desk)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As " Bill Gates " said on " The Simpsons " : " Buy him out boys !
" ( and the goons then smash Homer 's desk )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As "Bill Gates" said on "The Simpsons":  "Buy him out boys!
"  (and the goons then smash Homer's desk)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514688</id>
	<title>Re:Trapped!</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1261423140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>More to the point, it would be *really* hard to prove consumer confusion between a design firm and a Internet search engine, even if they were aggressively defending their trademark.</i> <br> <br>Yes, because an ad campaign of "Go to Bing for all your web needs" and "Go to Bing for all your web needs" would be completely unrelated.  They are two "web services" that have the same name.  And apparently Microsoft found out about the little one and decided they didn't have to act.  They either predicted the suit and expect to win, or expect to settle after having little Bing get a taste of the cost of lawyers for less than approaching him before now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , it would be * really * hard to prove consumer confusion between a design firm and a Internet search engine , even if they were aggressively defending their trademark .
Yes , because an ad campaign of " Go to Bing for all your web needs " and " Go to Bing for all your web needs " would be completely unrelated .
They are two " web services " that have the same name .
And apparently Microsoft found out about the little one and decided they did n't have to act .
They either predicted the suit and expect to win , or expect to settle after having little Bing get a taste of the cost of lawyers for less than approaching him before now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, it would be *really* hard to prove consumer confusion between a design firm and a Internet search engine, even if they were aggressively defending their trademark.
Yes, because an ad campaign of "Go to Bing for all your web needs" and "Go to Bing for all your web needs" would be completely unrelated.
They are two "web services" that have the same name.
And apparently Microsoft found out about the little one and decided they didn't have to act.
They either predicted the suit and expect to win, or expect to settle after having little Bing get a taste of the cost of lawyers for less than approaching him before now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511862</id>
	<title>Re:From TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261409760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it doesn't really say anything. They were a small fish happily using the trademark for the past nine years without any trouble. There was no need for them to register the mark, which is still legally protected even without registration. Trademark registration is expensive and takes years to complete, so many small companies are content to use unregistered trademarks.</p><p>However, now that Microsoft has stepped on their turf, they've decided they need additional protection, so they began the process of registering the mark. They should have no problem getting that registration since they likely have ample proof that they've been using it for nine years (marketing materials, print advertisements, maybe some TV commercials, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it does n't really say anything .
They were a small fish happily using the trademark for the past nine years without any trouble .
There was no need for them to register the mark , which is still legally protected even without registration .
Trademark registration is expensive and takes years to complete , so many small companies are content to use unregistered trademarks.However , now that Microsoft has stepped on their turf , they 've decided they need additional protection , so they began the process of registering the mark .
They should have no problem getting that registration since they likely have ample proof that they 've been using it for nine years ( marketing materials , print advertisements , maybe some TV commercials , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it doesn't really say anything.
They were a small fish happily using the trademark for the past nine years without any trouble.
There was no need for them to register the mark, which is still legally protected even without registration.
Trademark registration is expensive and takes years to complete, so many small companies are content to use unregistered trademarks.However, now that Microsoft has stepped on their turf, they've decided they need additional protection, so they began the process of registering the mark.
They should have no problem getting that registration since they likely have ample proof that they've been using it for nine years (marketing materials, print advertisements, maybe some TV commercials, etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511498</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30517958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30516250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30517924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30516630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30521582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30516346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_132243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30521144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30516346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30516250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30516630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30515406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30521144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30521582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30517924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30517958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30514688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30512092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30513788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_132243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_132243.30511482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
