<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_22_1936214</id>
	<title>Microsoft Ordered To Pay $290M, Stop Selling Word</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261468800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Cytalk and other readers tipped us to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BL3FV20091222?type=technologyNews">Microsoft's loss in a US appeals court</a>, in a patent case brought by Canadian company i4i. Microsoft must now pay $290M and either stop selling Word (and probably Office) by January 11, or somehow work around the patent by that date. A Seattle PI blog reports that <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/188986.asp">Redmond has a few options left</a>: <i>"In a statement, Microsoft said it was working hard to comply with the injunction. The company also said it is considering further legal options, including possible requests for a new hearing or a writ of certiorari from the US Supreme Court."</i> <b>Update: 12/22 20:47 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://slashdot.org/~kdawson/">KD</a> </b>: Tim Bray has up a blog post explaining <a href="http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/12/22/On-Custom-XML">why it would be no great loss</a> if Microsoft dropped the "custom XML" feature in dispute. <br> <b>Update: 12/22 23:04 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://slashdot.org/~kdawson/">KD</a> </b>: Reader adeelarshad82 pointed out a <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/dec09/12-22statement.mspx">statement released by Microsoft</a> earlier today, which says in part: "We expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007, with this feature removed, available for U.S. sale and distribution by the injunction date. In addition, the beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which are available now for downloading, do not contain the technology covered by the injunction."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cytalk and other readers tipped us to Microsoft 's loss in a US appeals court , in a patent case brought by Canadian company i4i .
Microsoft must now pay $ 290M and either stop selling Word ( and probably Office ) by January 11 , or somehow work around the patent by that date .
A Seattle PI blog reports that Redmond has a few options left : " In a statement , Microsoft said it was working hard to comply with the injunction .
The company also said it is considering further legal options , including possible requests for a new hearing or a writ of certiorari from the US Supreme Court .
" Update : 12/22 20 : 47 GMT by KD : Tim Bray has up a blog post explaining why it would be no great loss if Microsoft dropped the " custom XML " feature in dispute .
Update : 12/22 23 : 04 GMT by KD : Reader adeelarshad82 pointed out a statement released by Microsoft earlier today , which says in part : " We expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007 , with this feature removed , available for U.S. sale and distribution by the injunction date .
In addition , the beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010 , which are available now for downloading , do not contain the technology covered by the injunction .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cytalk and other readers tipped us to Microsoft's loss in a US appeals court, in a patent case brought by Canadian company i4i.
Microsoft must now pay $290M and either stop selling Word (and probably Office) by January 11, or somehow work around the patent by that date.
A Seattle PI blog reports that Redmond has a few options left: "In a statement, Microsoft said it was working hard to comply with the injunction.
The company also said it is considering further legal options, including possible requests for a new hearing or a writ of certiorari from the US Supreme Court.
" Update: 12/22 20:47 GMT by  KD : Tim Bray has up a blog post explaining why it would be no great loss if Microsoft dropped the "custom XML" feature in dispute.
Update: 12/22 23:04 GMT by  KD : Reader adeelarshad82 pointed out a statement released by Microsoft earlier today, which says in part: "We expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007, with this feature removed, available for U.S. sale and distribution by the injunction date.
In addition, the beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which are available now for downloading, do not contain the technology covered by the injunction.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529230</id>
	<title>Re:Office "open" XML</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1261477260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, ODF is a proprietary SUN standard couched in the clothing of an international standard.<br>Yes, ODF does seem to be somewhat less baroque and better documented then OOXML, but they are in fact both formats created for a particular piece of software which has been extracted for wider use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , ODF is a proprietary SUN standard couched in the clothing of an international standard.Yes , ODF does seem to be somewhat less baroque and better documented then OOXML , but they are in fact both formats created for a particular piece of software which has been extracted for wider use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, ODF is a proprietary SUN standard couched in the clothing of an international standard.Yes, ODF does seem to be somewhat less baroque and better documented then OOXML, but they are in fact both formats created for a particular piece of software which has been extracted for wider use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30532096</id>
	<title>Are the damages awarded excessive?</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1261496640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this patent is as specific as half the people in this thread state, could such a tiny feature have damaged i4i/gained Microsoft $296,000,000?  I know nothing of patent law or XML, but a minor change being worth $296M sounds a bit extreme.  Even if the damages were awarded to make an example of MS, I can't imagine either company benefitting 1/10th of that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this patent is as specific as half the people in this thread state , could such a tiny feature have damaged i4i/gained Microsoft $ 296,000,000 ?
I know nothing of patent law or XML , but a minor change being worth $ 296M sounds a bit extreme .
Even if the damages were awarded to make an example of MS , I ca n't imagine either company benefitting 1/10th of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this patent is as specific as half the people in this thread state, could such a tiny feature have damaged i4i/gained Microsoft $296,000,000?
I know nothing of patent law or XML, but a minor change being worth $296M sounds a bit extreme.
Even if the damages were awarded to make an example of MS, I can't imagine either company benefitting 1/10th of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531746</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>AReilly</author>
	<datestamp>1261492560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when does DTD or CSS file creation involve "a map of metacodes found in the document" such that "the map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document".  I doubt that is what Microsoft have done, because, well, who would?  It means that this map needs to be regenerated after every edit of the document, which means that this isn't terribly useful or document-independent meta-information...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does DTD or CSS file creation involve " a map of metacodes found in the document " such that " the map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document " .
I doubt that is what Microsoft have done , because , well , who would ?
It means that this map needs to be regenerated after every edit of the document , which means that this is n't terribly useful or document-independent meta-information.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does DTD or CSS file creation involve "a map of metacodes found in the document" such that "the map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document".
I doubt that is what Microsoft have done, because, well, who would?
It means that this map needs to be regenerated after every edit of the document, which means that this isn't terribly useful or document-independent meta-information...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528810</id>
	<title>Whew!</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1261475760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank goodness that all of the apps I've ever been involved with date back from the old days when this was all done with SGML. That stuff is probably all out of patent (if it ever was patented) and into the public domain by now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank goodness that all of the apps I 've ever been involved with date back from the old days when this was all done with SGML .
That stuff is probably all out of patent ( if it ever was patented ) and into the public domain by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank goodness that all of the apps I've ever been involved with date back from the old days when this was all done with SGML.
That stuff is probably all out of patent (if it ever was patented) and into the public domain by now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970</id>
	<title>Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261472400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is stupid because Microsoft was moving here to open XML standards from their propriety<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc format. It's a common thing to blame MS for their locked in, own formats since Open Office and others couldn't open them.</p><p>i4i's patent is basically XML (yes it really is, read the <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=5787449.PN.&amp;OS=PN/5787449&amp;RS=PN/5787449" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">patent claims</a> [uspto.gov]). They're not a patent troll in that way that they did actually come up with the same system before everyone else, but afterwards W3C created what is called XML. But i4i was silent for years, everyone started using XML and to improve intercompatibility with Word documents, MS started using it too.</p><p>i4i got its big hit. But unless MS takes this to supreme court, it basically means they can sue everyone and every software that uses XML. And there's tons of them, even games and mobile phones too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is stupid because Microsoft was moving here to open XML standards from their propriety .doc format .
It 's a common thing to blame MS for their locked in , own formats since Open Office and others could n't open them.i4i 's patent is basically XML ( yes it really is , read the patent claims [ uspto.gov ] ) .
They 're not a patent troll in that way that they did actually come up with the same system before everyone else , but afterwards W3C created what is called XML .
But i4i was silent for years , everyone started using XML and to improve intercompatibility with Word documents , MS started using it too.i4i got its big hit .
But unless MS takes this to supreme court , it basically means they can sue everyone and every software that uses XML .
And there 's tons of them , even games and mobile phones too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is stupid because Microsoft was moving here to open XML standards from their propriety .doc format.
It's a common thing to blame MS for their locked in, own formats since Open Office and others couldn't open them.i4i's patent is basically XML (yes it really is, read the patent claims [uspto.gov]).
They're not a patent troll in that way that they did actually come up with the same system before everyone else, but afterwards W3C created what is called XML.
But i4i was silent for years, everyone started using XML and to improve intercompatibility with Word documents, MS started using it too.i4i got its big hit.
But unless MS takes this to supreme court, it basically means they can sue everyone and every software that uses XML.
And there's tons of them, even games and mobile phones too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531876</id>
	<title>Re:Missing option. . .</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1261494000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or given MIcrosoft's big cash reserve, just buy out i4i for US$400 million.</p><p>Another possibility is that Microsoft could do an accelerated beta test for Word 2010 and by early February 2010 offer Office 2007 with Word 2010 instead of Word 2007.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or given MIcrosoft 's big cash reserve , just buy out i4i for US $ 400 million.Another possibility is that Microsoft could do an accelerated beta test for Word 2010 and by early February 2010 offer Office 2007 with Word 2010 instead of Word 2007 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or given MIcrosoft's big cash reserve, just buy out i4i for US$400 million.Another possibility is that Microsoft could do an accelerated beta test for Word 2010 and by early February 2010 offer Office 2007 with Word 2010 instead of Word 2007.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531040</id>
	<title>Re:Missing option. . .</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261486260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They could, you know, settle with i4i and license the patent from them?</p></div><p>That's assuming i4i is willing to license it. There's no obligation for them to do so, and they seem to hold a specific grudge, so...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could , you know , settle with i4i and license the patent from them ? That 's assuming i4i is willing to license it .
There 's no obligation for them to do so , and they seem to hold a specific grudge , so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could, you know, settle with i4i and license the patent from them?That's assuming i4i is willing to license it.
There's no obligation for them to do so, and they seem to hold a specific grudge, so...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528800</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1261475700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/xml/" title="cat-v.org">You're not alone</a> [cat-v.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not alone [ cat-v.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not alone [cat-v.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528152</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>World of Warcraft uses XML for it's UI</p><p>http://www.wowwiki.com/XML\_user\_interface</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>World of Warcraft uses XML for it 's UIhttp : //www.wowwiki.com/XML \ _user \ _interface</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World of Warcraft uses XML for it's UIhttp://www.wowwiki.com/XML\_user\_interface</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530812</id>
	<title>Law of Moses</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1261484820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apropos that i4i gets eye for an eye from none other than Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apropos that i4i gets eye for an eye from none other than Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apropos that i4i gets eye for an eye from none other than Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529078</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>emodgod</author>
	<datestamp>1261476660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been a while but if I remember the i4i product allows you to author data in MS Word based on a document type definition (DTD). The use of Word to do so is not new. Another small Ottawa Canada based company, Microstar Software, were first to do so with their product called Near &amp; Far Author for Microsoft Word (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-16732008.html). This the same company that brought Near &amp; Far view, a graphical view of SGML DTD, to market. They started working on Author around 1994-1995 time frame. I joined MIcrostar's Research Dept. in late 1995, so I can't say for sure when they started. Matt?</p><p>Author would take an SGML DTD and create a Word template that embodied the grammar defined by the DTD. This template along with a special plug-in would guide the user through the document creation process. The document's validity was verified using James Clark's SP SGML Parser Tool Kit, which was compiled into the plug-in.</p><p>Authoring was part plug-in and part Word Basic, such that when Microsoft switched to VB Script in Word 6, or there about, the product was not ported to the newer version of Word since sales were not as expected and it would have meant investing significant resources, for a small company, to make it compatible with Word 6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been a while but if I remember the i4i product allows you to author data in MS Word based on a document type definition ( DTD ) .
The use of Word to do so is not new .
Another small Ottawa Canada based company , Microstar Software , were first to do so with their product called Near &amp; Far Author for Microsoft Word ( http : //www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-16732008.html ) .
This the same company that brought Near &amp; Far view , a graphical view of SGML DTD , to market .
They started working on Author around 1994-1995 time frame .
I joined MIcrostar 's Research Dept .
in late 1995 , so I ca n't say for sure when they started .
Matt ? Author would take an SGML DTD and create a Word template that embodied the grammar defined by the DTD .
This template along with a special plug-in would guide the user through the document creation process .
The document 's validity was verified using James Clark 's SP SGML Parser Tool Kit , which was compiled into the plug-in.Authoring was part plug-in and part Word Basic , such that when Microsoft switched to VB Script in Word 6 , or there about , the product was not ported to the newer version of Word since sales were not as expected and it would have meant investing significant resources , for a small company , to make it compatible with Word 6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been a while but if I remember the i4i product allows you to author data in MS Word based on a document type definition (DTD).
The use of Word to do so is not new.
Another small Ottawa Canada based company, Microstar Software, were first to do so with their product called Near &amp; Far Author for Microsoft Word (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-16732008.html).
This the same company that brought Near &amp; Far view, a graphical view of SGML DTD, to market.
They started working on Author around 1994-1995 time frame.
I joined MIcrostar's Research Dept.
in late 1995, so I can't say for sure when they started.
Matt?Author would take an SGML DTD and create a Word template that embodied the grammar defined by the DTD.
This template along with a special plug-in would guide the user through the document creation process.
The document's validity was verified using James Clark's SP SGML Parser Tool Kit, which was compiled into the plug-in.Authoring was part plug-in and part Word Basic, such that when Microsoft switched to VB Script in Word 6, or there about, the product was not ported to the newer version of Word since sales were not as expected and it would have meant investing significant resources, for a small company, to make it compatible with Word 6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528918</id>
	<title>Monkey see, monkey...???</title>
	<author>garg0yle</author>
	<datestamp>1261476180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the same Microsoft that just said they're all in favour of respecting others' intellectual property rights?  To <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/18/microsoft\_battle\_of\_the\_bing/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">quote</a> [theregister.co.uk], "We respect trademarks and other people's intellectual property, and look forward to the next steps in the judicial process."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the same Microsoft that just said they 're all in favour of respecting others ' intellectual property rights ?
To quote [ theregister.co.uk ] , " We respect trademarks and other people 's intellectual property , and look forward to the next steps in the judicial process .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the same Microsoft that just said they're all in favour of respecting others' intellectual property rights?
To quote [theregister.co.uk], "We respect trademarks and other people's intellectual property, and look forward to the next steps in the judicial process.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529186</id>
	<title>Re:$500 instead of $90 for MS Word?</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1261477080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that they think the price difference would be for those companies who would otherwise have bought the customXML addon instead of having it bundled. Most consumers would not use the feature anway, let alone buy it. So the extra price is entirely down to those corporate customers who would have shelled out for the extra feature.</p><p>Personally, I think that's a very small number. If the addon was bundled with Office Premium Plus Extra Ultimate edition, then a lot of corporates buy it regardless. I know we had to buy the next version up becuase we wanted InfoPath (no, I don't think we actually used it in anger).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that they think the price difference would be for those companies who would otherwise have bought the customXML addon instead of having it bundled .
Most consumers would not use the feature anway , let alone buy it .
So the extra price is entirely down to those corporate customers who would have shelled out for the extra feature.Personally , I think that 's a very small number .
If the addon was bundled with Office Premium Plus Extra Ultimate edition , then a lot of corporates buy it regardless .
I know we had to buy the next version up becuase we wanted InfoPath ( no , I do n't think we actually used it in anger ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that they think the price difference would be for those companies who would otherwise have bought the customXML addon instead of having it bundled.
Most consumers would not use the feature anway, let alone buy it.
So the extra price is entirely down to those corporate customers who would have shelled out for the extra feature.Personally, I think that's a very small number.
If the addon was bundled with Office Premium Plus Extra Ultimate edition, then a lot of corporates buy it regardless.
I know we had to buy the next version up becuase we wanted InfoPath (no, I don't think we actually used it in anger).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529776</id>
	<title>Re:Hear that sound?</title>
	<author>BooRolla</author>
	<datestamp>1261479720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your signature is quite astute - especially so for this topic since it basically sums up your post<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your signature is quite astute - especially so for this topic since it basically sums up your post : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your signature is quite astute - especially so for this topic since it basically sums up your post :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528526</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>jsnipy</author>
	<datestamp>1261474440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, just change<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.docx to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.zip and see the magic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , just change .docx to .zip and see the magic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, just change .docx to .zip and see the magic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529734</id>
	<title>Re:Hear that sound?</title>
	<author>shalla</author>
	<datestamp>1261479480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The scary thing is that even with judgements like this and the patent trolls out there we are actually seeing the likes of Microsoft push for option 1.</p><p>Patents will be the death of innovation if the system continues in this way, particularly if the US judgements are assessed at insane levels of cost.  If Microsoft had known about this patent when starting the development they'd have bought the company for less than this judgement.</p></div><p>This is exactly the wrong case to use for the argument of a broken patent system, I think, primarily because Microsoft DID know about the patent and deliberately ripped the feature off with the intent to crush the company's product out of the competition.  In fact, if I recall correctly, they worked with i4i, visited with them, and were pretty blatant about the whole thing.</p><p>So while I often think that the patent system has a LOT of problems (a LOT a lot of problems), this particular case is one where Microsoft is getting what they deserve, in my opinion.  i4i isn't a patent troll... Microsoft pretty much came along, took what they wanted, and expected their size and superior market share to protect them.  That's not good enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The scary thing is that even with judgements like this and the patent trolls out there we are actually seeing the likes of Microsoft push for option 1.Patents will be the death of innovation if the system continues in this way , particularly if the US judgements are assessed at insane levels of cost .
If Microsoft had known about this patent when starting the development they 'd have bought the company for less than this judgement.This is exactly the wrong case to use for the argument of a broken patent system , I think , primarily because Microsoft DID know about the patent and deliberately ripped the feature off with the intent to crush the company 's product out of the competition .
In fact , if I recall correctly , they worked with i4i , visited with them , and were pretty blatant about the whole thing.So while I often think that the patent system has a LOT of problems ( a LOT a lot of problems ) , this particular case is one where Microsoft is getting what they deserve , in my opinion .
i4i is n't a patent troll... Microsoft pretty much came along , took what they wanted , and expected their size and superior market share to protect them .
That 's not good enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scary thing is that even with judgements like this and the patent trolls out there we are actually seeing the likes of Microsoft push for option 1.Patents will be the death of innovation if the system continues in this way, particularly if the US judgements are assessed at insane levels of cost.
If Microsoft had known about this patent when starting the development they'd have bought the company for less than this judgement.This is exactly the wrong case to use for the argument of a broken patent system, I think, primarily because Microsoft DID know about the patent and deliberately ripped the feature off with the intent to crush the company's product out of the competition.
In fact, if I recall correctly, they worked with i4i, visited with them, and were pretty blatant about the whole thing.So while I often think that the patent system has a LOT of problems (a LOT a lot of problems), this particular case is one where Microsoft is getting what they deserve, in my opinion.
i4i isn't a patent troll... Microsoft pretty much came along, took what they wanted, and expected their size and superior market share to protect them.
That's not good enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529532</id>
	<title>I know Laugh</title>
	<author>jordan\_tryon</author>
	<datestamp>1261478580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>haha this makes me laugh. I hate word and think they should stop selling it. It sucks and I hate going to a school with such a horrible word processor. I prefer my OpenOffice</htmltext>
<tokenext>haha this makes me laugh .
I hate word and think they should stop selling it .
It sucks and I hate going to a school with such a horrible word processor .
I prefer my OpenOffice</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haha this makes me laugh.
I hate word and think they should stop selling it.
It sucks and I hate going to a school with such a horrible word processor.
I prefer my OpenOffice</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528570</id>
	<title>In Related News</title>
	<author>Greg Hullender</author>
	<datestamp>1261474680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Microsoft suit with 2th-4-2th seems to be going about the same way.
<p>
--Greg<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Microsoft suit with 2th-4-2th seems to be going about the same way .
--Greg : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Microsoft suit with 2th-4-2th seems to be going about the same way.
--Greg :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528138</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261472940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Say goodbye <b>for</b> XML?!  Why?  Can't XML speak for itself?  <br> <br>

Your post is a load of horseshit and furthers my fears that you're a Microsoft shill (your bing posts are borderline brilliant).<p><div class="quote"><p>This is stupid because Microsoft was moving here to open XML standards from their propriety<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc format. It's a common thing to blame MS for their locked in, own formats since Open Office and others couldn't open them.</p></div><p>What's your point?  That since they're being attacked by a patent troll I should forgive them for everything fucking stupid and backward they've done?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>i4i's patent is basically XML (yes it really is, read the patent claims [uspto.gov]).</p></div><p>Your expertise as a patent examiner is priceless to me.  As is your extreme simplification of something you know nothing about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say goodbye for XML ? !
Why ? Ca n't XML speak for itself ?
Your post is a load of horseshit and furthers my fears that you 're a Microsoft shill ( your bing posts are borderline brilliant ) .This is stupid because Microsoft was moving here to open XML standards from their propriety .doc format .
It 's a common thing to blame MS for their locked in , own formats since Open Office and others could n't open them.What 's your point ?
That since they 're being attacked by a patent troll I should forgive them for everything fucking stupid and backward they 've done ? i4i 's patent is basically XML ( yes it really is , read the patent claims [ uspto.gov ] ) .Your expertise as a patent examiner is priceless to me .
As is your extreme simplification of something you know nothing about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say goodbye for XML?!
Why?  Can't XML speak for itself?
Your post is a load of horseshit and furthers my fears that you're a Microsoft shill (your bing posts are borderline brilliant).This is stupid because Microsoft was moving here to open XML standards from their propriety .doc format.
It's a common thing to blame MS for their locked in, own formats since Open Office and others couldn't open them.What's your point?
That since they're being attacked by a patent troll I should forgive them for everything fucking stupid and backward they've done?i4i's patent is basically XML (yes it really is, read the patent claims [uspto.gov]).Your expertise as a patent examiner is priceless to me.
As is your extreme simplification of something you know nothing about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531884</id>
	<title>Re:Hear that sound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261494120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah yes! Another slashdork acting like a mere 300mil is going to bring society to a halt. Or Microsoft. Or Bill Gates for that matter.<br> <br>I seriously have never seen more delusional people in my life. You're not insightful at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes !
Another slashdork acting like a mere 300mil is going to bring society to a halt .
Or Microsoft .
Or Bill Gates for that matter .
I seriously have never seen more delusional people in my life .
You 're not insightful at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes!
Another slashdork acting like a mere 300mil is going to bring society to a halt.
Or Microsoft.
Or Bill Gates for that matter.
I seriously have never seen more delusional people in my life.
You're not insightful at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528350</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious solution</title>
	<author>reebmmm</author>
	<datestamp>1261473780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, on the one hand, the patent gives i4i the right to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention.  The court has already told MS that Word is infringing, therefore selling Word would violate the patent rights. MS could simply removing the infringing feature and it could continue selling Word. MS is in control of this aspect.</p><p>On the other hand, at the moment, i4i has very little incentive to offer MS any sort of license. i4i won at the lower court and on appeal. Plus, I believe the story goes that they approached MS and MS sent them away and then went ahead and implemented it anyway.  They will be able to demand infringement-sized royalties the closer it gets to January 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , on the one hand , the patent gives i4i the right to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention .
The court has already told MS that Word is infringing , therefore selling Word would violate the patent rights .
MS could simply removing the infringing feature and it could continue selling Word .
MS is in control of this aspect.On the other hand , at the moment , i4i has very little incentive to offer MS any sort of license .
i4i won at the lower court and on appeal .
Plus , I believe the story goes that they approached MS and MS sent them away and then went ahead and implemented it anyway .
They will be able to demand infringement-sized royalties the closer it gets to January 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, on the one hand, the patent gives i4i the right to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention.
The court has already told MS that Word is infringing, therefore selling Word would violate the patent rights.
MS could simply removing the infringing feature and it could continue selling Word.
MS is in control of this aspect.On the other hand, at the moment, i4i has very little incentive to offer MS any sort of license.
i4i won at the lower court and on appeal.
Plus, I believe the story goes that they approached MS and MS sent them away and then went ahead and implemented it anyway.
They will be able to demand infringement-sized royalties the closer it gets to January 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528486</id>
	<title>Cheaper solution</title>
	<author>Kaz Kylheku</author>
	<datestamp>1261474320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hire some hitmen to kill the key people behind the patent troll?</p><p>Seriously, 250 million, or 25 grand? Doh?</p><p>They could so get away with it. Patent trolls have numerous enemies. Everyone hates them.</p><p>There is no way the motive could be uniquely pinned on anyone. There are ways to move the money to make it impossible to trace. A large corporation has its money flows divided in so many ways, you can easily scrape together the cash from a hit from multiple sources without any traceability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hire some hitmen to kill the key people behind the patent troll ? Seriously , 250 million , or 25 grand ?
Doh ? They could so get away with it .
Patent trolls have numerous enemies .
Everyone hates them.There is no way the motive could be uniquely pinned on anyone .
There are ways to move the money to make it impossible to trace .
A large corporation has its money flows divided in so many ways , you can easily scrape together the cash from a hit from multiple sources without any traceability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hire some hitmen to kill the key people behind the patent troll?Seriously, 250 million, or 25 grand?
Doh?They could so get away with it.
Patent trolls have numerous enemies.
Everyone hates them.There is no way the motive could be uniquely pinned on anyone.
There are ways to move the money to make it impossible to trace.
A large corporation has its money flows divided in so many ways, you can easily scrape together the cash from a hit from multiple sources without any traceability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530922</id>
	<title>Re:Hear that sound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261485480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its the sound of the patent system beginning to crash down.  RIght now there are two choices</p><p>1) Take the fundamentally broken US system and roll it out across the world<br>2) Take the rest of the worlds approach that software can't be patented and roll it out to the UK</p><p>The scary thing is that even with judgements like this and the patent trolls out there we are actually seeing the likes of Microsoft push for option 1.</p><p>Patents will be the death of innovation if the system continues in this way, particularly if the US judgements are assessed at insane levels of cost.  If Microsoft had known about this patent when starting the development they'd have bought the company for less than this judgement.</p></div><p>3) Alter the IP patent system so that it more closely reflects the physcial patent process. ie. you can't just say "I'm patenting this" you either have to submit a working "device" (executable code) or "blueprints" (source code), and any significant change is not covered, just like in the "real" world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the sound of the patent system beginning to crash down .
RIght now there are two choices1 ) Take the fundamentally broken US system and roll it out across the world2 ) Take the rest of the worlds approach that software ca n't be patented and roll it out to the UKThe scary thing is that even with judgements like this and the patent trolls out there we are actually seeing the likes of Microsoft push for option 1.Patents will be the death of innovation if the system continues in this way , particularly if the US judgements are assessed at insane levels of cost .
If Microsoft had known about this patent when starting the development they 'd have bought the company for less than this judgement.3 ) Alter the IP patent system so that it more closely reflects the physcial patent process .
ie. you ca n't just say " I 'm patenting this " you either have to submit a working " device " ( executable code ) or " blueprints " ( source code ) , and any significant change is not covered , just like in the " real " world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the sound of the patent system beginning to crash down.
RIght now there are two choices1) Take the fundamentally broken US system and roll it out across the world2) Take the rest of the worlds approach that software can't be patented and roll it out to the UKThe scary thing is that even with judgements like this and the patent trolls out there we are actually seeing the likes of Microsoft push for option 1.Patents will be the death of innovation if the system continues in this way, particularly if the US judgements are assessed at insane levels of cost.
If Microsoft had known about this patent when starting the development they'd have bought the company for less than this judgement.3) Alter the IP patent system so that it more closely reflects the physcial patent process.
ie. you can't just say "I'm patenting this" you either have to submit a working "device" (executable code) or "blueprints" (source code), and any significant change is not covered, just like in the "real" world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528734</id>
	<title>Re:Missing option. . .</title>
	<author>IIRCAFAIKIANAL</author>
	<datestamp>1261475460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i4i is privately held, so it's not that simple.</p><p><a href="http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=51f6ac07-09ec-4940-aba2-4ecdda0a4f3f&amp;k=64727" title="financialpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=51f6ac07-09ec-4940-aba2-4ecdda0a4f3f&amp;k=64727</a> [financialpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i4i is privately held , so it 's not that simple.http : //www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html ? id = 51f6ac07-09ec-4940-aba2-4ecdda0a4f3f&amp;k = 64727 [ financialpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i4i is privately held, so it's not that simple.http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=51f6ac07-09ec-4940-aba2-4ecdda0a4f3f&amp;k=64727 [financialpost.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531280</id>
	<title>Re:Love it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261488120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft wants the patent regime</p></div><p>Are you sure about this? Microsoft wants the copyright regime, to prevent illicit use of their actual products, but I'd bet they'd love to see patents go away entirely.</p><p>Large companies like Microsoft have the resources to compete without any help from the government. Without patents, they could cut their R&amp;D budget to nothing, significantly reduce their legal budget and just copy everything in the market that's successful. That doesn't differ too much from the situation today, since they already copy everything in the market that's successful, but the R&amp;D and legal savings would be huge since they wouldn't have to build a defensive patent portfolio and wouldn't have any patent litigation to worry about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft wants the patent regimeAre you sure about this ?
Microsoft wants the copyright regime , to prevent illicit use of their actual products , but I 'd bet they 'd love to see patents go away entirely.Large companies like Microsoft have the resources to compete without any help from the government .
Without patents , they could cut their R&amp;D budget to nothing , significantly reduce their legal budget and just copy everything in the market that 's successful .
That does n't differ too much from the situation today , since they already copy everything in the market that 's successful , but the R&amp;D and legal savings would be huge since they would n't have to build a defensive patent portfolio and would n't have any patent litigation to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft wants the patent regimeAre you sure about this?
Microsoft wants the copyright regime, to prevent illicit use of their actual products, but I'd bet they'd love to see patents go away entirely.Large companies like Microsoft have the resources to compete without any help from the government.
Without patents, they could cut their R&amp;D budget to nothing, significantly reduce their legal budget and just copy everything in the market that's successful.
That doesn't differ too much from the situation today, since they already copy everything in the market that's successful, but the R&amp;D and legal savings would be huge since they wouldn't have to build a defensive patent portfolio and wouldn't have any patent litigation to worry about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529864</id>
	<title>Re:Hear that sound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261480020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is true. But you're going to get about a dozen replies from MS-bashers who are going to argue that, in this one particular case, patent-trolling is okay (because it hurts MS). These same guys will then promptly scream bloody murder if the same company sues Apple or an OSS developer for patent infringement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true .
But you 're going to get about a dozen replies from MS-bashers who are going to argue that , in this one particular case , patent-trolling is okay ( because it hurts MS ) .
These same guys will then promptly scream bloody murder if the same company sues Apple or an OSS developer for patent infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true.
But you're going to get about a dozen replies from MS-bashers who are going to argue that, in this one particular case, patent-trolling is okay (because it hurts MS).
These same guys will then promptly scream bloody murder if the same company sues Apple or an OSS developer for patent infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528510</id>
	<title>Re:Missing option. . .</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1261474440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually if Microsoft just bought out the i4i company like it did Hotmail and others, it would then own those patents. Then they would pay the $290M to themselves, raid the i4i company for key personnel, IP, and other patents and source code, and then close it down after sucking all of the marrow out of i4i's bones.</p><p>Corporate Cannibalism is the word I would use to call that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually if Microsoft just bought out the i4i company like it did Hotmail and others , it would then own those patents .
Then they would pay the $ 290M to themselves , raid the i4i company for key personnel , IP , and other patents and source code , and then close it down after sucking all of the marrow out of i4i 's bones.Corporate Cannibalism is the word I would use to call that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually if Microsoft just bought out the i4i company like it did Hotmail and others, it would then own those patents.
Then they would pay the $290M to themselves, raid the i4i company for key personnel, IP, and other patents and source code, and then close it down after sucking all of the marrow out of i4i's bones.Corporate Cannibalism is the word I would use to call that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533264</id>
	<title>Re:Office "open" XML</title>
	<author>alfielee</author>
	<datestamp>1259784360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only that but M$ held up proceedings by dumping truckloads of irrelevant information that required the original committee thousands of hours wasting time checking the irrelevance. They are dirty, scummy &amp; Stevie-babee (I'm gonna f^\%king kill Google), is the top of the pile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that but M $ held up proceedings by dumping truckloads of irrelevant information that required the original committee thousands of hours wasting time checking the irrelevance .
They are dirty , scummy &amp; Stevie-babee ( I 'm gon na f ^ \ % king kill Google ) , is the top of the pile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that but M$ held up proceedings by dumping truckloads of irrelevant information that required the original committee thousands of hours wasting time checking the irrelevance.
They are dirty, scummy &amp; Stevie-babee (I'm gonna f^\%king kill Google), is the top of the pile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528146</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Greg Hullender</author>
	<datestamp>1261472940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually it seems even broader than XML.
<p>
From the abstract of TFP:
</p><p>
"A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations. The system, for use by computer software developers, removes dependency on document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document. The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content, storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation."
</p><p>
--Greg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it seems even broader than XML .
From the abstract of TFP : " A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document , particularly for data representation and transformations .
The system , for use by computer software developers , removes dependency on document encoding technology .
A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document .
The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document .
The system allows of multiple views of the same content , the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content , storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation .
" --Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it seems even broader than XML.
From the abstract of TFP:

"A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations.
The system, for use by computer software developers, removes dependency on document encoding technology.
A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document.
The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document.
The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content, storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation.
"

--Greg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528346</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>hebcb</author>
	<datestamp>1261473780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the patent: "The meaning of 'kword' is up to the interpreter. SGML specifies rules for insertion of tags into the content stream and how tags are to be differentiated from the content."

They discuss how SMGL allows the interpreter to determine the semantics of "kword" so clearly (IMO) they acknowledge the pre-existance of the idea of separation of expression of "architecture" from the expression of content.

I didn't get all the way through the application so I don't know the specifics of the manipulation they are staking claim to but by my interpretation, there is no danger to XML since XML is a direct descendant of SGML.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the patent : " The meaning of 'kword ' is up to the interpreter .
SGML specifies rules for insertion of tags into the content stream and how tags are to be differentiated from the content .
" They discuss how SMGL allows the interpreter to determine the semantics of " kword " so clearly ( IMO ) they acknowledge the pre-existance of the idea of separation of expression of " architecture " from the expression of content .
I did n't get all the way through the application so I do n't know the specifics of the manipulation they are staking claim to but by my interpretation , there is no danger to XML since XML is a direct descendant of SGML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the patent: "The meaning of 'kword' is up to the interpreter.
SGML specifies rules for insertion of tags into the content stream and how tags are to be differentiated from the content.
"

They discuss how SMGL allows the interpreter to determine the semantics of "kword" so clearly (IMO) they acknowledge the pre-existance of the idea of separation of expression of "architecture" from the expression of content.
I didn't get all the way through the application so I don't know the specifics of the manipulation they are staking claim to but by my interpretation, there is no danger to XML since XML is a direct descendant of SGML.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529764</id>
	<title>Re:Love it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261479660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or when RIM were in trouble over a patent involved a "mobile device that can recieve pushed data updates" - guess what, as the US government would have been crippled if RIM went belly-up or had to stop supplying handsets, RIM managed to keep on trading and had no problem squashing the patent owner.</p><p>MS will be the same, but I do think patent wars are liken nuclear MAD - everyone of the large companies have enough patents on each other that suing would spell the death of one or the other - eg SCO, Novel and MS.<br>When it breaks down is when a rogue company also has a nuke - sorry, patent on one of the big players.  8)</p><p>Software patents are stifling interoperability, innovation and are simply being used as a tool to kill competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or when RIM were in trouble over a patent involved a " mobile device that can recieve pushed data updates " - guess what , as the US government would have been crippled if RIM went belly-up or had to stop supplying handsets , RIM managed to keep on trading and had no problem squashing the patent owner.MS will be the same , but I do think patent wars are liken nuclear MAD - everyone of the large companies have enough patents on each other that suing would spell the death of one or the other - eg SCO , Novel and MS.When it breaks down is when a rogue company also has a nuke - sorry , patent on one of the big players .
8 ) Software patents are stifling interoperability , innovation and are simply being used as a tool to kill competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or when RIM were in trouble over a patent involved a "mobile device that can recieve pushed data updates" - guess what, as the US government would have been crippled if RIM went belly-up or had to stop supplying handsets, RIM managed to keep on trading and had no problem squashing the patent owner.MS will be the same, but I do think patent wars are liken nuclear MAD - everyone of the large companies have enough patents on each other that suing would spell the death of one or the other - eg SCO, Novel and MS.When it breaks down is when a rogue company also has a nuke - sorry, patent on one of the big players.
8)Software patents are stifling interoperability, innovation and are simply being used as a tool to kill competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533690</id>
	<title>Why the patent doesn't affect XML itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259748780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just poked through <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=5787449.PN.&amp;OS=PN/5787449&amp;RS=PN/5787449" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">the patent</a> [uspto.gov] and AFAICT---an acronym all us non-lawyers seem to be falling back on---here's what they patented:</p><p>1. You make one file in an unstructured/poorly-structured format.</p><p>2. You make an overlay of that file that indicates where markup <i>would</i> have gone, if the format weren't totally braindead.</p><p>3. But it is braindead, so you can't get the markup from the file, or leave it there.  Instead, you create a map file, which maps content from the separate document file into a markup file.</p><p>Because XML is <i>itself</i> processed to create a visual layout (via XSLT)---rather than having the visual layout created separately and then just linked with the XML---this process doesn't cover that.  I'm guessing that all the "custom xml" stuff in office was stored in a separate file or in a separate portion of the file, and that's why it infringed.</p><p>What's disturbing is that, although this doesn't seem to cover anything widely in use by anybody, it <i>is</i> extremely general.  What <i>is</i> patented is basically just any mapped (vs. inline) text structure, and a way to transform mapped structure to inline structure.  One might say that this is something like if someone had patented reverse-polish notation.  Sure, everybody uses the normal algebraic notation, but what happens when a stack-based machine is invented, and reverse-polish notation suddenly makes a lot of sense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just poked through the patent [ uspto.gov ] and AFAICT---an acronym all us non-lawyers seem to be falling back on---here 's what they patented : 1 .
You make one file in an unstructured/poorly-structured format.2 .
You make an overlay of that file that indicates where markup would have gone , if the format were n't totally braindead.3 .
But it is braindead , so you ca n't get the markup from the file , or leave it there .
Instead , you create a map file , which maps content from the separate document file into a markup file.Because XML is itself processed to create a visual layout ( via XSLT ) ---rather than having the visual layout created separately and then just linked with the XML---this process does n't cover that .
I 'm guessing that all the " custom xml " stuff in office was stored in a separate file or in a separate portion of the file , and that 's why it infringed.What 's disturbing is that , although this does n't seem to cover anything widely in use by anybody , it is extremely general .
What is patented is basically just any mapped ( vs. inline ) text structure , and a way to transform mapped structure to inline structure .
One might say that this is something like if someone had patented reverse-polish notation .
Sure , everybody uses the normal algebraic notation , but what happens when a stack-based machine is invented , and reverse-polish notation suddenly makes a lot of sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just poked through the patent [uspto.gov] and AFAICT---an acronym all us non-lawyers seem to be falling back on---here's what they patented:1.
You make one file in an unstructured/poorly-structured format.2.
You make an overlay of that file that indicates where markup would have gone, if the format weren't totally braindead.3.
But it is braindead, so you can't get the markup from the file, or leave it there.
Instead, you create a map file, which maps content from the separate document file into a markup file.Because XML is itself processed to create a visual layout (via XSLT)---rather than having the visual layout created separately and then just linked with the XML---this process doesn't cover that.
I'm guessing that all the "custom xml" stuff in office was stored in a separate file or in a separate portion of the file, and that's why it infringed.What's disturbing is that, although this doesn't seem to cover anything widely in use by anybody, it is extremely general.
What is patented is basically just any mapped (vs. inline) text structure, and a way to transform mapped structure to inline structure.
One might say that this is something like if someone had patented reverse-polish notation.
Sure, everybody uses the normal algebraic notation, but what happens when a stack-based machine is invented, and reverse-polish notation suddenly makes a lot of sense?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528336</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The patent cites SGML as prior art. The difference is that, with SGML (supposedly) the meaning of the codes is defined in the standard. By analogy with programming langauges, the tags are constants, not variables. The claim is (far as I can tell) for the idea of letting the tags be variables, whose meanings reside in separate lookup table.
<p>
It seems to me, though, that this covers the use of XML schemas -- at least, if they're constructed under program control.
</p><p>--Greg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent cites SGML as prior art .
The difference is that , with SGML ( supposedly ) the meaning of the codes is defined in the standard .
By analogy with programming langauges , the tags are constants , not variables .
The claim is ( far as I can tell ) for the idea of letting the tags be variables , whose meanings reside in separate lookup table .
It seems to me , though , that this covers the use of XML schemas -- at least , if they 're constructed under program control .
--Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent cites SGML as prior art.
The difference is that, with SGML (supposedly) the meaning of the codes is defined in the standard.
By analogy with programming langauges, the tags are constants, not variables.
The claim is (far as I can tell) for the idea of letting the tags be variables, whose meanings reside in separate lookup table.
It seems to me, though, that this covers the use of XML schemas -- at least, if they're constructed under program control.
--Greg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528494</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261474320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised you were modded "Informative" for your assumption without any facts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised you were modded " Informative " for your assumption without any facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised you were modded "Informative" for your assumption without any facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528766</id>
	<title>Re:Office "open" XML</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1261475580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like to prepend the initial for Microsoft and make it "MOO-XML". Memorable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like to prepend the initial for Microsoft and make it " MOO-XML " .
Memorable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like to prepend the initial for Microsoft and make it "MOO-XML".
Memorable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528194</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>toadlife</author>
	<datestamp>1261473120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're not a patent troll in that way that they did actually come up with the same system before everyone else......i4i was silent for years, everyone started using XML</p></div><p>Sounds like a patent troll to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not a patent troll in that way that they did actually come up with the same system before everyone else......i4i was silent for years , everyone started using XMLSounds like a patent troll to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not a patent troll in that way that they did actually come up with the same system before everyone else......i4i was silent for years, everyone started using XMLSounds like a patent troll to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533666</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Insanity Defense</author>
	<datestamp>1259748420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Are you serious? What kind of small company actually designs "...software...which they showed to Microsoft..." and doesn't expect</p><p>a) the ideas to be stolen by Microsoft.</p><p>b) be bought out by Microsoft.</p><p>c) be "corporate cannibalized" by Microsoft.</p><p>d) ALL OF THE ABOVE!</p></div>

</blockquote><p>
This was around the time that Microsoft was being tried and convicted on anti trust grounds in the U.S. and <i>supposedly</i> was reforming into a "kinder gentler" Microsoft that didn't resemble the black widow spider any more.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
What kind of small company actually designs " ...software...which they showed to Microsoft... " and does n't expecta ) the ideas to be stolen by Microsoft.b ) be bought out by Microsoft.c ) be " corporate cannibalized " by Microsoft.d ) ALL OF THE ABOVE !
This was around the time that Microsoft was being tried and convicted on anti trust grounds in the U.S. and supposedly was reforming into a " kinder gentler " Microsoft that did n't resemble the black widow spider any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
What kind of small company actually designs "...software...which they showed to Microsoft..." and doesn't expecta) the ideas to be stolen by Microsoft.b) be bought out by Microsoft.c) be "corporate cannibalized" by Microsoft.d) ALL OF THE ABOVE!
This was around the time that Microsoft was being tried and convicted on anti trust grounds in the U.S. and supposedly was reforming into a "kinder gentler" Microsoft that didn't resemble the black widow spider any more.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>PeterBrett</author>
	<datestamp>1261472820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i4i's patent is basically XML (yes it really is, read the <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=5787449.PN.&amp;OS=PN/5787449&amp;RS=PN/5787449" title="uspto.gov">patent claims</a> [uspto.gov]).</p> </div><p>I think you're wrong. From the coverage I've read, it's a method of processing and manipulating XML documents, and they designed an piece of XML editing software around it which they showed to Microsoft and Microsoft then stole the ideas from.</p><p>It does not predate XML, and has nothing to do with XML-based standards. For instance, i4i have stated that they do not believe OpenOffice.org, KOffice, Symphony etc. infringe their patent.</p><p>I'm sure some kind person will come along and back me up on this one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i4i 's patent is basically XML ( yes it really is , read the patent claims [ uspto.gov ] ) .
I think you 're wrong .
From the coverage I 've read , it 's a method of processing and manipulating XML documents , and they designed an piece of XML editing software around it which they showed to Microsoft and Microsoft then stole the ideas from.It does not predate XML , and has nothing to do with XML-based standards .
For instance , i4i have stated that they do not believe OpenOffice.org , KOffice , Symphony etc .
infringe their patent.I 'm sure some kind person will come along and back me up on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i4i's patent is basically XML (yes it really is, read the patent claims [uspto.gov]).
I think you're wrong.
From the coverage I've read, it's a method of processing and manipulating XML documents, and they designed an piece of XML editing software around it which they showed to Microsoft and Microsoft then stole the ideas from.It does not predate XML, and has nothing to do with XML-based standards.
For instance, i4i have stated that they do not believe OpenOffice.org, KOffice, Symphony etc.
infringe their patent.I'm sure some kind person will come along and back me up on this one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531484</id>
	<title>Re:Hear that sound?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261489920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>patent trolls, by definition, do not use the patents they hold to do useful things. i4i does. Ergo, not a patent troll.</p><p>This is in contrast to your typical patent troll which exists as a corporation only to hold and prosecute patents and produces nothing useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>patent trolls , by definition , do not use the patents they hold to do useful things .
i4i does .
Ergo , not a patent troll.This is in contrast to your typical patent troll which exists as a corporation only to hold and prosecute patents and produces nothing useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>patent trolls, by definition, do not use the patents they hold to do useful things.
i4i does.
Ergo, not a patent troll.This is in contrast to your typical patent troll which exists as a corporation only to hold and prosecute patents and produces nothing useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530756</id>
	<title>Yeah, well</title>
	<author>bit9</author>
	<datestamp>1261484460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's one thing to abuse a standards body (not to mention the English language) in order to call your proprietary crap a "standard", but it's another thing to get people to adopt your crappy so-called standard.
</p><p>
Of course, MS doesn't really care if anybody else adopts the standard or not - so long as they can use the words "ISO standard" in their advertising.
</p><p>
The point is, I can be okay with there being an OOXML "standard" as long as nobody else besides MS ends up using OOXML, and as long as the ISO committee isn't totally and permanently ruined as a result of having been used like a sock puppet by MS.
</p><p>Of course, the ISO committee needs to at least stand up and put a stop to that "drafting errors" nonsense, but hopefully if they did that they could at least continue on with some amount of credibility intact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's one thing to abuse a standards body ( not to mention the English language ) in order to call your proprietary crap a " standard " , but it 's another thing to get people to adopt your crappy so-called standard .
Of course , MS does n't really care if anybody else adopts the standard or not - so long as they can use the words " ISO standard " in their advertising .
The point is , I can be okay with there being an OOXML " standard " as long as nobody else besides MS ends up using OOXML , and as long as the ISO committee is n't totally and permanently ruined as a result of having been used like a sock puppet by MS . Of course , the ISO committee needs to at least stand up and put a stop to that " drafting errors " nonsense , but hopefully if they did that they could at least continue on with some amount of credibility intact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's one thing to abuse a standards body (not to mention the English language) in order to call your proprietary crap a "standard", but it's another thing to get people to adopt your crappy so-called standard.
Of course, MS doesn't really care if anybody else adopts the standard or not - so long as they can use the words "ISO standard" in their advertising.
The point is, I can be okay with there being an OOXML "standard" as long as nobody else besides MS ends up using OOXML, and as long as the ISO committee isn't totally and permanently ruined as a result of having been used like a sock puppet by MS.
Of course, the ISO committee needs to at least stand up and put a stop to that "drafting errors" nonsense, but hopefully if they did that they could at least continue on with some amount of credibility intact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528144</id>
	<title>Missing option. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261472940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Microsoft must now pay $290M and either stop selling Word (and probably Office) by January 11, or somehow work around the patent by that date."</p><p>They could, you know, settle with i4i and license the patent from them?</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think i4i's patent is legitimate (I'm not really very familiar with this case - somehow missed it before this, will need to study up on it more later). I'm just saying, the list of options seems to leave out one pretty big possibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft must now pay $ 290M and either stop selling Word ( and probably Office ) by January 11 , or somehow work around the patent by that date .
" They could , you know , settle with i4i and license the patent from them ? Do n't get me wrong , I 'm not saying I think i4i 's patent is legitimate ( I 'm not really very familiar with this case - somehow missed it before this , will need to study up on it more later ) .
I 'm just saying , the list of options seems to leave out one pretty big possibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft must now pay $290M and either stop selling Word (and probably Office) by January 11, or somehow work around the patent by that date.
"They could, you know, settle with i4i and license the patent from them?Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think i4i's patent is legitimate (I'm not really very familiar with this case - somehow missed it before this, will need to study up on it more later).
I'm just saying, the list of options seems to leave out one pretty big possibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528180</id>
	<title>What happened then? Well in Redmond they say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that i4i's stock price grew THREE sizes that day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that i4i 's stock price grew THREE sizes that day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that i4i's stock price grew THREE sizes that day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528610</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261474860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly is the non-obvious part of the patent in this? I mean, what can be non-obvious about opening a document and saving it to a file...along with... you know...the information about the document...in maybe some standard way? I mean, how can this be non-obvious? (ie: patent-able?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is the non-obvious part of the patent in this ?
I mean , what can be non-obvious about opening a document and saving it to a file...along with... you know...the information about the document...in maybe some standard way ?
I mean , how can this be non-obvious ?
( ie : patent-able ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is the non-obvious part of the patent in this?
I mean, what can be non-obvious about opening a document and saving it to a file...along with... you know...the information about the document...in maybe some standard way?
I mean, how can this be non-obvious?
(ie: patent-able?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531448</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>cakoose</author>
	<datestamp>1261489500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think you're wrong. From the coverage I've read, it's a method of processing and manipulating XML documents, and they designed an piece of XML editing software around it which they showed to Microsoft and Microsoft then stole the ideas from.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
News coverage of technical things is so effing horrible.  Most tech articles are written by people who don't understand programming but don't see why that should stop them from broadcasting their misinterpretation of technical information.  You should  just read the patent; most of it is very clearly-written.
</p><blockquote><div><p>It does not predate XML, and has nothing to do with XML-based standards.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Filed in 1994, it does predate XML.  It doesn't predate SGML, though, and since core XML is essentially the same thing, it's probably safe.  However, I it does affect <em>XML-based</em> standards -- specifically the ones that separate content from structure/presentation.
</p><p>

<b>The Patent</b>

</p><p>
It's a way to separate content from structure.  So, for example, where and SGML document would store data like "&lt;p&gt;Hi &lt;i&gt;friend&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;", they store it as two separate pieces of data.  The content piece would be "Hi friend", the structure piece would be "0:p, 3:i, 9:/i, 9:/p" (roughly).  So now if you wanted to format that document differently, you could just use a different structure piece; the content piece doesn't change.
</p><p>
This exact technique obvious, so I don't think it should have been awarded a patent.  But maybe what's obvious to us in 2009 may not have been obvious to the patent examiner in 1994 and, in any case, it doesn't look like any of the affected parties are going to try and argue obviousness.  The important question is how generally will their technique be interpreted?
</p><p>
Taken narrowly, it's a way of putting XML-like tags in a separate file, mapping them back into the content using byte offsets.  This is easy enough to work around.  Taken broadly, it's a way of separating content from structure.  So, any time you augment the content in one file by some kind of annotations in another, you're violating their patent.  So HTML and CSS are problematic because the style information is in a separate file, even though the mapping is done using tag and class names and not using byte offsets.
</p><p>
I don't know much about patent litigation, so I don't know how much leeway they give plaintiffs.  But I doubt Microsoft Word uses their exact technique; they probably do something similar to HTML+CSS or XSLT.  So this victory could indicate that the courts are interpreting the technique broadly.  Which sucks.  Man, patents like this are killing the industry.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're wrong .
From the coverage I 've read , it 's a method of processing and manipulating XML documents , and they designed an piece of XML editing software around it which they showed to Microsoft and Microsoft then stole the ideas from .
News coverage of technical things is so effing horrible .
Most tech articles are written by people who do n't understand programming but do n't see why that should stop them from broadcasting their misinterpretation of technical information .
You should just read the patent ; most of it is very clearly-written .
It does not predate XML , and has nothing to do with XML-based standards .
Filed in 1994 , it does predate XML .
It does n't predate SGML , though , and since core XML is essentially the same thing , it 's probably safe .
However , I it does affect XML-based standards -- specifically the ones that separate content from structure/presentation .
The Patent It 's a way to separate content from structure .
So , for example , where and SGML document would store data like " Hi friend " , they store it as two separate pieces of data .
The content piece would be " Hi friend " , the structure piece would be " 0 : p , 3 : i , 9 : /i , 9 : /p " ( roughly ) .
So now if you wanted to format that document differently , you could just use a different structure piece ; the content piece does n't change .
This exact technique obvious , so I do n't think it should have been awarded a patent .
But maybe what 's obvious to us in 2009 may not have been obvious to the patent examiner in 1994 and , in any case , it does n't look like any of the affected parties are going to try and argue obviousness .
The important question is how generally will their technique be interpreted ?
Taken narrowly , it 's a way of putting XML-like tags in a separate file , mapping them back into the content using byte offsets .
This is easy enough to work around .
Taken broadly , it 's a way of separating content from structure .
So , any time you augment the content in one file by some kind of annotations in another , you 're violating their patent .
So HTML and CSS are problematic because the style information is in a separate file , even though the mapping is done using tag and class names and not using byte offsets .
I do n't know much about patent litigation , so I do n't know how much leeway they give plaintiffs .
But I doubt Microsoft Word uses their exact technique ; they probably do something similar to HTML + CSS or XSLT .
So this victory could indicate that the courts are interpreting the technique broadly .
Which sucks .
Man , patents like this are killing the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're wrong.
From the coverage I've read, it's a method of processing and manipulating XML documents, and they designed an piece of XML editing software around it which they showed to Microsoft and Microsoft then stole the ideas from.
News coverage of technical things is so effing horrible.
Most tech articles are written by people who don't understand programming but don't see why that should stop them from broadcasting their misinterpretation of technical information.
You should  just read the patent; most of it is very clearly-written.
It does not predate XML, and has nothing to do with XML-based standards.
Filed in 1994, it does predate XML.
It doesn't predate SGML, though, and since core XML is essentially the same thing, it's probably safe.
However, I it does affect XML-based standards -- specifically the ones that separate content from structure/presentation.
The Patent


It's a way to separate content from structure.
So, for example, where and SGML document would store data like "Hi friend", they store it as two separate pieces of data.
The content piece would be "Hi friend", the structure piece would be "0:p, 3:i, 9:/i, 9:/p" (roughly).
So now if you wanted to format that document differently, you could just use a different structure piece; the content piece doesn't change.
This exact technique obvious, so I don't think it should have been awarded a patent.
But maybe what's obvious to us in 2009 may not have been obvious to the patent examiner in 1994 and, in any case, it doesn't look like any of the affected parties are going to try and argue obviousness.
The important question is how generally will their technique be interpreted?
Taken narrowly, it's a way of putting XML-like tags in a separate file, mapping them back into the content using byte offsets.
This is easy enough to work around.
Taken broadly, it's a way of separating content from structure.
So, any time you augment the content in one file by some kind of annotations in another, you're violating their patent.
So HTML and CSS are problematic because the style information is in a separate file, even though the mapping is done using tag and class names and not using byte offsets.
I don't know much about patent litigation, so I don't know how much leeway they give plaintiffs.
But I doubt Microsoft Word uses their exact technique; they probably do something similar to HTML+CSS or XSLT.
So this victory could indicate that the courts are interpreting the technique broadly.
Which sucks.
Man, patents like this are killing the industry.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528310</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1261473660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When has prior work ever stopped a patent from being issued?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When has prior work ever stopped a patent from being issued ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When has prior work ever stopped a patent from being issued?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529022</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>northernfrights</author>
	<datestamp>1261476480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are absolutely correct.  And I like your shirt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are absolutely correct .
And I like your shirt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are absolutely correct.
And I like your shirt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528246</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just for good measure, I still refuse to use XML in any application I design. I have no intentions of changing that any time soon either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for good measure , I still refuse to use XML in any application I design .
I have no intentions of changing that any time soon either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for good measure, I still refuse to use XML in any application I design.
I have no intentions of changing that any time soon either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530484</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>treeves</author>
	<datestamp>1261482840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For instance, i4i have stated that they do not believe OpenOffice.org, KOffice, Symphony etc. infringe their patent.</p></div><p>Well, it couldn't be because there's absolutely no money to be had in making those claims, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance , i4i have stated that they do not believe OpenOffice.org , KOffice , Symphony etc .
infringe their patent.Well , it could n't be because there 's absolutely no money to be had in making those claims , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance, i4i have stated that they do not believe OpenOffice.org, KOffice, Symphony etc.
infringe their patent.Well, it couldn't be because there's absolutely no money to be had in making those claims, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530588</id>
	<title>Re:Missing option. . .</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1261483560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They could, you know, settle with i4i and license the patent from them?</i></p><p>I think the reason they're in court is because Microsoft wouldn't settle (or i4i wouldn't accept Microsoft's terms).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could , you know , settle with i4i and license the patent from them ? I think the reason they 're in court is because Microsoft would n't settle ( or i4i would n't accept Microsoft 's terms ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could, you know, settle with i4i and license the patent from them?I think the reason they're in court is because Microsoft wouldn't settle (or i4i wouldn't accept Microsoft's terms).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Briefly reading over the patent in question, I'm curious how this patient was granted given that it resembles IBM's Generalized Markup Language (GML) from the 1960s and the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) standardized by the ISO in 1986.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Briefly reading over the patent in question , I 'm curious how this patient was granted given that it resembles IBM 's Generalized Markup Language ( GML ) from the 1960s and the Standard Generalized Markup Language ( SGML ) standardized by the ISO in 1986 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Briefly reading over the patent in question, I'm curious how this patient was granted given that it resembles IBM's Generalized Markup Language (GML) from the 1960s and the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) standardized by the ISO in 1986.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528586</id>
	<title>RTFP</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1261474740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/msfti4icomplaint.pdf" title="zdnet.com">The patent in question.</a> [zdnet.com]. Decide for yourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent in question .
[ zdnet.com ] . Decide for yourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent in question.
[zdnet.com]. Decide for yourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531738</id>
	<title>As they say...</title>
	<author>okmijnuhb</author>
	<datestamp>1261492440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An i4i, a tooth for a tooth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An i4i , a tooth for a tooth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An i4i, a tooth for a tooth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528404</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261474020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like Tex and LaTeX to me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like Tex and LaTeX to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like Tex and LaTeX to me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528730</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>Melted\_Igloo</author>
	<datestamp>1261475400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats the dumbest patent Ive ever seen

Its basically formating a document with pointers or some database-type garbage, who in their right mind would ever use it</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats the dumbest patent Ive ever seen Its basically formating a document with pointers or some database-type garbage , who in their right mind would ever use it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats the dumbest patent Ive ever seen

Its basically formating a document with pointers or some database-type garbage, who in their right mind would ever use it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528508</id>
	<title>I am quite torn on this one</title>
	<author>downix</author>
	<datestamp>1261474380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to believe these patents are often times too broad, but one of the reasons why they've stuck is due to Microsoft pushing for them to be this way.  If this sticks, MSFT is looking to be, in effect, shot by their own gun.  The irony is not lost on me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to believe these patents are often times too broad , but one of the reasons why they 've stuck is due to Microsoft pushing for them to be this way .
If this sticks , MSFT is looking to be , in effect , shot by their own gun .
The irony is not lost on me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to believe these patents are often times too broad, but one of the reasons why they've stuck is due to Microsoft pushing for them to be this way.
If this sticks, MSFT is looking to be, in effect, shot by their own gun.
The irony is not lost on me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529374</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261477860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you serious?  What kind of small company actually designs "...software...which they showed to Microsoft..." and doesn't expect</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; a) the ideas to be stolen by Microsoft.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b) be bought out by Microsoft.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; c) be "corporate cannibalized" by Microsoft.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; d) ALL OF THE ABOVE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
What kind of small company actually designs " ...software...which they showed to Microsoft... " and does n't expect           a ) the ideas to be stolen by Microsoft .
          b ) be bought out by Microsoft .
          c ) be " corporate cannibalized " by Microsoft .
          d ) ALL OF THE ABOVE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
What kind of small company actually designs "...software...which they showed to Microsoft..." and doesn't expect
          a) the ideas to be stolen by Microsoft.
          b) be bought out by Microsoft.
          c) be "corporate cannibalized" by Microsoft.
          d) ALL OF THE ABOVE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528084</id>
	<title>$500 instead of $90 for MS Word?</title>
	<author>Greg Hullender</author>
	<datestamp>1261472820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought it odd that they calculated the damages on the assumption that, had Microsoft paid royalties on the patent, they'd have pushed the price of MS Word from $90 to $500 with no loss of sales. It seems to me that if the traffic would support that price, Microsoft would already have been charging it!

<p>--Greg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it odd that they calculated the damages on the assumption that , had Microsoft paid royalties on the patent , they 'd have pushed the price of MS Word from $ 90 to $ 500 with no loss of sales .
It seems to me that if the traffic would support that price , Microsoft would already have been charging it !
--Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it odd that they calculated the damages on the assumption that, had Microsoft paid royalties on the patent, they'd have pushed the price of MS Word from $90 to $500 with no loss of sales.
It seems to me that if the traffic would support that price, Microsoft would already have been charging it!
--Greg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533698</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Insanity Defense</author>
	<datestamp>1259749020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>p&gt;<blockquote><div><p>b) they did and tried, but the judge said it was not valid as prior art.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Not THE judge.  This has gone through the trial and 2 appeals so it is at least 3 judges now.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>p &gt; b ) they did and tried , but the judge said it was not valid as prior art .
Not THE judge .
This has gone through the trial and 2 appeals so it is at least 3 judges now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>p&gt;b) they did and tried, but the judge said it was not valid as prior art.
Not THE judge.
This has gone through the trial and 2 appeals so it is at least 3 judges now.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531226</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261487640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then the rest of the world can go ahead and leave you behind.</p><p>Amazingly short sighted and just way off target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then the rest of the world can go ahead and leave you behind.Amazingly short sighted and just way off target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then the rest of the world can go ahead and leave you behind.Amazingly short sighted and just way off target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528376</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious solution</title>
	<author>acecamaro666</author>
	<datestamp>1261473900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS offered X. i4i wants Y. X is less than Y.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS offered X. i4i wants Y. X is less than Y .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS offered X. i4i wants Y. X is less than Y.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528688</id>
	<title>Re:What happened then? Well in Redmond they say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261475160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 Internet for Grinch reference at the appropriate time of the season.  You made me laugh out loud.  Thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Internet for Grinch reference at the appropriate time of the season .
You made me laugh out loud .
Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Internet for Grinch reference at the appropriate time of the season.
You made me laugh out loud.
Thanks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528366</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Something doesn't add up here. Why is i4i not simply willing to license the rights to use the patent to MS (for an exorbitant fee). Why ask for it to be removed? Seems like a license to print money.</p></div><p>If you read about the issue in more detail, you'll discover that i4i tried for several years to get MS to pay for a patent license, and MS stalled and delayed and equivocated about it. The lawsuit was a last resort, and AFAICT the damages are so high as a punitive measure. In theory, MS shouldn't be able to get away with ripping people off just because they're the big kid in town.</p><p>But yes, I'm sure i4i could have done things in a better way -- they're not completely free from blame for this mess.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something does n't add up here .
Why is i4i not simply willing to license the rights to use the patent to MS ( for an exorbitant fee ) .
Why ask for it to be removed ?
Seems like a license to print money.If you read about the issue in more detail , you 'll discover that i4i tried for several years to get MS to pay for a patent license , and MS stalled and delayed and equivocated about it .
The lawsuit was a last resort , and AFAICT the damages are so high as a punitive measure .
In theory , MS should n't be able to get away with ripping people off just because they 're the big kid in town.But yes , I 'm sure i4i could have done things in a better way -- they 're not completely free from blame for this mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something doesn't add up here.
Why is i4i not simply willing to license the rights to use the patent to MS (for an exorbitant fee).
Why ask for it to be removed?
Seems like a license to print money.If you read about the issue in more detail, you'll discover that i4i tried for several years to get MS to pay for a patent license, and MS stalled and delayed and equivocated about it.
The lawsuit was a last resort, and AFAICT the damages are so high as a punitive measure.
In theory, MS shouldn't be able to get away with ripping people off just because they're the big kid in town.But yes, I'm sure i4i could have done things in a better way -- they're not completely free from blame for this mess.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528632</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261474980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm curious how this patient was granted given that it resembles IBM's Generalized Markup Language (GML) from the 1960s and the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) standardized by the ISO in 1986.</p></div><p>To answer your curiosity, it is because existing prior art is not involved with the granting of a patent.<br>In other words, it doesn't matter if prior art exists or not, in order to get a patent approved.</p><p>Prior art is only used as a defense when being challenged by a patent holder.</p><p>So if it truly does count as prior art, it is fully up to Microsoft to present it at the patent case to get the patent thrown out.<br>That can't happen until after Microsoft is sued for patent violation, which in turn can't happen until someone files for a patent on it.</p><p>Since both of those items have come to pass, the question now is, why didn't Microsoft use that as prior art to halt the trial?</p><p>The two options that come to mind are<br>a) They didn't know about it, or<br>b) they did and tried, but the judge said it was not valid as prior art.</p><p>On one hand, being Microsoft I would be shocked if A was the case.<br>However, on the other hand, being Microsoft it is not too shocking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious how this patient was granted given that it resembles IBM 's Generalized Markup Language ( GML ) from the 1960s and the Standard Generalized Markup Language ( SGML ) standardized by the ISO in 1986.To answer your curiosity , it is because existing prior art is not involved with the granting of a patent.In other words , it does n't matter if prior art exists or not , in order to get a patent approved.Prior art is only used as a defense when being challenged by a patent holder.So if it truly does count as prior art , it is fully up to Microsoft to present it at the patent case to get the patent thrown out.That ca n't happen until after Microsoft is sued for patent violation , which in turn ca n't happen until someone files for a patent on it.Since both of those items have come to pass , the question now is , why did n't Microsoft use that as prior art to halt the trial ? The two options that come to mind area ) They did n't know about it , orb ) they did and tried , but the judge said it was not valid as prior art.On one hand , being Microsoft I would be shocked if A was the case.However , on the other hand , being Microsoft it is not too shocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious how this patient was granted given that it resembles IBM's Generalized Markup Language (GML) from the 1960s and the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) standardized by the ISO in 1986.To answer your curiosity, it is because existing prior art is not involved with the granting of a patent.In other words, it doesn't matter if prior art exists or not, in order to get a patent approved.Prior art is only used as a defense when being challenged by a patent holder.So if it truly does count as prior art, it is fully up to Microsoft to present it at the patent case to get the patent thrown out.That can't happen until after Microsoft is sued for patent violation, which in turn can't happen until someone files for a patent on it.Since both of those items have come to pass, the question now is, why didn't Microsoft use that as prior art to halt the trial?The two options that come to mind area) They didn't know about it, orb) they did and tried, but the judge said it was not valid as prior art.On one hand, being Microsoft I would be shocked if A was the case.However, on the other hand, being Microsoft it is not too shocking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30532706</id>
	<title>Re:Love it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261504920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah such as a huge barrier to entry for applying for a patent (ie, paperwork only a very large bureaucracy that would exist in a large company could only process, added "fees" that only a fortune 500 company could afford, etc)</p><p>Yeah you bet they will apply for a change. It will not only stop patent sharks, but those lowlife scumbags with their scary ideas from being able to profit from them, and make it easier for these companies to steal them.</p><p>Of course that's when people attack with prior art, if that doesn't get abolished.</p><p>Bad enough that many of these huge companies are trying to slowly erode our work rights away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah such as a huge barrier to entry for applying for a patent ( ie , paperwork only a very large bureaucracy that would exist in a large company could only process , added " fees " that only a fortune 500 company could afford , etc ) Yeah you bet they will apply for a change .
It will not only stop patent sharks , but those lowlife scumbags with their scary ideas from being able to profit from them , and make it easier for these companies to steal them.Of course that 's when people attack with prior art , if that does n't get abolished.Bad enough that many of these huge companies are trying to slowly erode our work rights away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah such as a huge barrier to entry for applying for a patent (ie, paperwork only a very large bureaucracy that would exist in a large company could only process, added "fees" that only a fortune 500 company could afford, etc)Yeah you bet they will apply for a change.
It will not only stop patent sharks, but those lowlife scumbags with their scary ideas from being able to profit from them, and make it easier for these companies to steal them.Of course that's when people attack with prior art, if that doesn't get abolished.Bad enough that many of these huge companies are trying to slowly erode our work rights away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530376</id>
	<title>Infringement already Fixed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261482420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft released a new Update yesterday to take care of the infringement already.:)</p><p>Microsoft Releases 2007 Office Supplement<br>A new supplement for the 2007 Microsoft Office system is required for the United States. After the supplement is installed, Microsoft Office Word will no longer read Custom XML elements contained within<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.docx,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.docm, or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xml files. The files will open, but any Custom XML elements will be removed. http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563214</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft released a new Update yesterday to take care of the infringement already .
: ) Microsoft Releases 2007 Office SupplementA new supplement for the 2007 Microsoft Office system is required for the United States .
After the supplement is installed , Microsoft Office Word will no longer read Custom XML elements contained within .docx , .docm , or .xml files .
The files will open , but any Custom XML elements will be removed .
http : //oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx ? pageid = 563214</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft released a new Update yesterday to take care of the infringement already.
:)Microsoft Releases 2007 Office SupplementA new supplement for the 2007 Microsoft Office system is required for the United States.
After the supplement is installed, Microsoft Office Word will no longer read Custom XML elements contained within .docx, .docm, or .xml files.
The files will open, but any Custom XML elements will be removed.
http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563214</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278</id>
	<title>Hear that sound?</title>
	<author>MosesJones</author>
	<datestamp>1261473480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its the sound of the patent system beginning to crash down.  RIght now there are two choices</p><p>1) Take the fundamentally broken US system and roll it out across the world<br>2) Take the rest of the worlds approach that software can't be patented and roll it out to the UK</p><p>The scary thing is that even with judgements like this and the patent trolls out there we are actually seeing the likes of Microsoft push for option 1.</p><p>Patents will be the death of innovation if the system continues in this way, particularly if the US judgements are assessed at insane levels of cost.  If Microsoft had known about this patent when starting the development they'd have bought the company for less than this judgement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the sound of the patent system beginning to crash down .
RIght now there are two choices1 ) Take the fundamentally broken US system and roll it out across the world2 ) Take the rest of the worlds approach that software ca n't be patented and roll it out to the UKThe scary thing is that even with judgements like this and the patent trolls out there we are actually seeing the likes of Microsoft push for option 1.Patents will be the death of innovation if the system continues in this way , particularly if the US judgements are assessed at insane levels of cost .
If Microsoft had known about this patent when starting the development they 'd have bought the company for less than this judgement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the sound of the patent system beginning to crash down.
RIght now there are two choices1) Take the fundamentally broken US system and roll it out across the world2) Take the rest of the worlds approach that software can't be patented and roll it out to the UKThe scary thing is that even with judgements like this and the patent trolls out there we are actually seeing the likes of Microsoft push for option 1.Patents will be the death of innovation if the system continues in this way, particularly if the US judgements are assessed at insane levels of cost.
If Microsoft had known about this patent when starting the development they'd have bought the company for less than this judgement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531044</id>
	<title>MICROSOFT  government</title>
	<author>DoninIN</author>
	<datestamp>1261486260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those of you who missed the 90's, it was long ago established that M$ just doesn't care, doesn't have to, and won't be stopped or bothered by something as trivial as the government trying to stop them. It is, to laugh. Also good God, if they'd strip of all the asinine bloat XML and other idiotic features it's acquired over the years it might go back to being a pretty damn nifty word processor. Yes MS Word is pretty damn good. Excel ain't bad either. I'm a charter member of the hate and reject M$ club, but that doesn't make all their products bad. DOS 5.0 didn't suck either. (Well, kinda, but really remember the hardware limitations of the era) None of this makes them any less.... "Evil" Embrace extend, violate ignore, pay the fine years later when a few hundred million dollars seems trivial for the internet browser monopoly/operating system monopoly etc. Sure, but anywho, it was long ago demonstrated they don't have to actually answer to anyone as unimportant as Me, You, or the silly Government. Also, do you suppose they'd have to write a check to cover $290,000,000, or is that much cash available in the petty cash box?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you who missed the 90 's , it was long ago established that M $ just does n't care , does n't have to , and wo n't be stopped or bothered by something as trivial as the government trying to stop them .
It is , to laugh .
Also good God , if they 'd strip of all the asinine bloat XML and other idiotic features it 's acquired over the years it might go back to being a pretty damn nifty word processor .
Yes MS Word is pretty damn good .
Excel ai n't bad either .
I 'm a charter member of the hate and reject M $ club , but that does n't make all their products bad .
DOS 5.0 did n't suck either .
( Well , kinda , but really remember the hardware limitations of the era ) None of this makes them any less.... " Evil " Embrace extend , violate ignore , pay the fine years later when a few hundred million dollars seems trivial for the internet browser monopoly/operating system monopoly etc .
Sure , but anywho , it was long ago demonstrated they do n't have to actually answer to anyone as unimportant as Me , You , or the silly Government .
Also , do you suppose they 'd have to write a check to cover $ 290,000,000 , or is that much cash available in the petty cash box ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you who missed the 90's, it was long ago established that M$ just doesn't care, doesn't have to, and won't be stopped or bothered by something as trivial as the government trying to stop them.
It is, to laugh.
Also good God, if they'd strip of all the asinine bloat XML and other idiotic features it's acquired over the years it might go back to being a pretty damn nifty word processor.
Yes MS Word is pretty damn good.
Excel ain't bad either.
I'm a charter member of the hate and reject M$ club, but that doesn't make all their products bad.
DOS 5.0 didn't suck either.
(Well, kinda, but really remember the hardware limitations of the era) None of this makes them any less.... "Evil" Embrace extend, violate ignore, pay the fine years later when a few hundred million dollars seems trivial for the internet browser monopoly/operating system monopoly etc.
Sure, but anywho, it was long ago demonstrated they don't have to actually answer to anyone as unimportant as Me, You, or the silly Government.
Also, do you suppose they'd have to write a check to cover $290,000,000, or is that much cash available in the petty cash box?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529096</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1261476720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just for good measure, I still refuse to use XML in any application I design. I have no intentions of changing that any time soon either.</p></div><p>I get you're not planning to write a web browser.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Yes, XML gets abused <em>a lot.</em> But I think there are applications where it makes sense. Namely those where the content is text with some <em>markup</em> (ever wondered what the "M" in XML stood for?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-))</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for good measure , I still refuse to use XML in any application I design .
I have no intentions of changing that any time soon either.I get you 're not planning to write a web browser .
: - ) Yes , XML gets abused a lot .
But I think there are applications where it makes sense .
Namely those where the content is text with some markup ( ever wondered what the " M " in XML stood for ?
: - ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for good measure, I still refuse to use XML in any application I design.
I have no intentions of changing that any time soon either.I get you're not planning to write a web browser.
:-)Yes, XML gets abused a lot.
But I think there are applications where it makes sense.
Namely those where the content is text with some markup (ever wondered what the "M" in XML stood for?
:-))
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30535320</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>TimSSG</author>
	<datestamp>1259770200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They denied my idea of round device designed to help support the weight of hulling gardening material around.

Said the wheel barrow and even the wheel was prior art.

Tim S.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They denied my idea of round device designed to help support the weight of hulling gardening material around .
Said the wheel barrow and even the wheel was prior art .
Tim S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They denied my idea of round device designed to help support the weight of hulling gardening material around.
Said the wheel barrow and even the wheel was prior art.
Tim S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528254</id>
	<title>Office "open" XML</title>
	<author>l2718</author>
	<datestamp>1261473360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I assume you know that OOXML is a proprietary MS format couched in the clothing of an international standard?  That it was only approved by ISO after MS manipulated the procedures, bribed partners to stack committees, and completely destroyed the technical committee?  Where MS is now abusing the "correction of drafting errors" mechanism to make material changes to the standard so that it continuously conforms to the behaviour of MS's proprietary software (including reversing changes specifically made by the ISO committee!) -- instead of having their software conform to the so-called "standard".

This is not to say I support software patents, especially on trivial ideas like a specific format for embedding proprietary data in an XML file (what i4i has "invented").  However, you should not fall for the MS "openness" scam.  Just because it's XML doesn't mean it's not Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume you know that OOXML is a proprietary MS format couched in the clothing of an international standard ?
That it was only approved by ISO after MS manipulated the procedures , bribed partners to stack committees , and completely destroyed the technical committee ?
Where MS is now abusing the " correction of drafting errors " mechanism to make material changes to the standard so that it continuously conforms to the behaviour of MS 's proprietary software ( including reversing changes specifically made by the ISO committee !
) -- instead of having their software conform to the so-called " standard " .
This is not to say I support software patents , especially on trivial ideas like a specific format for embedding proprietary data in an XML file ( what i4i has " invented " ) .
However , you should not fall for the MS " openness " scam .
Just because it 's XML does n't mean it 's not Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume you know that OOXML is a proprietary MS format couched in the clothing of an international standard?
That it was only approved by ISO after MS manipulated the procedures, bribed partners to stack committees, and completely destroyed the technical committee?
Where MS is now abusing the "correction of drafting errors" mechanism to make material changes to the standard so that it continuously conforms to the behaviour of MS's proprietary software (including reversing changes specifically made by the ISO committee!
) -- instead of having their software conform to the so-called "standard".
This is not to say I support software patents, especially on trivial ideas like a specific format for embedding proprietary data in an XML file (what i4i has "invented").
However, you should not fall for the MS "openness" scam.
Just because it's XML doesn't mean it's not Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528332</id>
	<title>i4i ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and Microsoft goes blind</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and Microsoft goes blind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and Microsoft goes blind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529044</id>
	<title>Too late...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft already has a work-around.  They've been pushing it to their partners since this morning at least:</p><p>http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563214</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft already has a work-around .
They 've been pushing it to their partners since this morning at least : http : //oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx ? pageid = 563214</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft already has a work-around.
They've been pushing it to their partners since this morning at least:http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563214</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531006</id>
	<title>Obligatory quote</title>
	<author>bit9</author>
	<datestamp>1261486080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm no big fan (nor hater, necessarily) of Ayn Rand, but I'm amazed at the frequency with which <a href="http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826" title="capmag.com" rel="nofollow">this quote</a> [capmag.com] from <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> has seemed particularly relevant over the last decade or so (emphasis mine):<p><div class="quote"><p>"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--<b>when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing</b>--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, <b>and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you</b>--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot."</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no big fan ( nor hater , necessarily ) of Ayn Rand , but I 'm amazed at the frequency with which this quote [ capmag.com ] from Atlas Shrugged has seemed particularly relevant over the last decade or so ( emphasis mine ) : " Do you wish to know whether that day is coming ?
Watch money .
Money is the barometer of a society 's virtue .
When you see that trading is done , not by consent , but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce , you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal , not in goods , but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work , and your laws do n't protect you against them , but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed .
Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality .
It will not permit a country to survive as half-property , half-loot .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no big fan (nor hater, necessarily) of Ayn Rand, but I'm amazed at the frequency with which this quote [capmag.com] from Atlas Shrugged has seemed particularly relevant over the last decade or so (emphasis mine):"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming?
Watch money.
Money is the barometer of a society's virtue.
When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed.
Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality.
It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529152</id>
	<title>Microsoft sweating? Hardly.</title>
	<author>Narcocide</author>
	<datestamp>1261476960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They will just pay the company 360 million to drop the charges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They will just pay the company 360 million to drop the charges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will just pay the company 360 million to drop the charges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528190</id>
	<title>Obvious solution</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1261473060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something doesn't add up here. Why is i4i not simply willing to license the rights to use the patent to MS (for an exorbitant fee). Why ask for it to be removed? Seems like a license to print money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something does n't add up here .
Why is i4i not simply willing to license the rights to use the patent to MS ( for an exorbitant fee ) .
Why ask for it to be removed ?
Seems like a license to print money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something doesn't add up here.
Why is i4i not simply willing to license the rights to use the patent to MS (for an exorbitant fee).
Why ask for it to be removed?
Seems like a license to print money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30532048</id>
	<title>Makes no since</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1261496100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>All this doesn't make a whole lot of since to me.Why in gods good name would MS after being told of the patent,offered a licensing deal,say no and implement it anyways??? If i were a stock holder, i wouldn't be to happy and maybe a suit could be brought up against MS for purposely loosing billions in dollars. Someones on a serious power trip thats for sure and wasting stock holders money too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this does n't make a whole lot of since to me.Why in gods good name would MS after being told of the patent,offered a licensing deal,say no and implement it anyways ? ? ?
If i were a stock holder , i would n't be to happy and maybe a suit could be brought up against MS for purposely loosing billions in dollars .
Someones on a serious power trip thats for sure and wasting stock holders money too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this doesn't make a whole lot of since to me.Why in gods good name would MS after being told of the patent,offered a licensing deal,say no and implement it anyways???
If i were a stock holder, i wouldn't be to happy and maybe a suit could be brought up against MS for purposely loosing billions in dollars.
Someones on a serious power trip thats for sure and wasting stock holders money too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533662</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1259748360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just for good measure, I still refuse to use XML in any application I design. I have no intentions of changing that any time soon either.</p></div><p>If you insist on XML for exchanging information, you have greatly decreased stupid, ignorant Windows programmers' chances to mess it up. <br> <br>
I hope that is not the reason why you refuse to use XML.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for good measure , I still refuse to use XML in any application I design .
I have no intentions of changing that any time soon either.If you insist on XML for exchanging information , you have greatly decreased stupid , ignorant Windows programmers ' chances to mess it up .
I hope that is not the reason why you refuse to use XML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for good measure, I still refuse to use XML in any application I design.
I have no intentions of changing that any time soon either.If you insist on XML for exchanging information, you have greatly decreased stupid, ignorant Windows programmers' chances to mess it up.
I hope that is not the reason why you refuse to use XML.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528280</id>
	<title>Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1261473480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is a canadian company doing business in the US then I guess that's ok.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is a canadian company doing business in the US then I guess that 's ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is a canadian company doing business in the US then I guess that's ok.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528668</id>
	<title>Writ of Certiorari</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1261475100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what a "writ of certiorari" is - is that a "we're too special to follow the law so please allow us to break it"?<br> <br>
(Yes, yes, I'm going to google it (not Bing! it...) to find out what it really is but I want to make a point before I go...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a lawyer so I do n't know what a " writ of certiorari " is - is that a " we 're too special to follow the law so please allow us to break it " ?
( Yes , yes , I 'm going to google it ( not Bing !
it... ) to find out what it really is but I want to make a point before I go... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what a "writ of certiorari" is - is that a "we're too special to follow the law so please allow us to break it"?
(Yes, yes, I'm going to google it (not Bing!
it...) to find out what it really is but I want to make a point before I go...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528178</id>
	<title>Love it</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1261473060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Power structures serve the powerful first. Microsoft wants the patent regime, but it doesn't want situations like this. When the powerful get shafted, then we can expect patent reform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Power structures serve the powerful first .
Microsoft wants the patent regime , but it does n't want situations like this .
When the powerful get shafted , then we can expect patent reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Power structures serve the powerful first.
Microsoft wants the patent regime, but it doesn't want situations like this.
When the powerful get shafted, then we can expect patent reform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528476</id>
	<title>Re:Say goodbye for XML</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261474260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And doesn't any SGML or XML type language bear a strong semblance to Lisp S-expressions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And does n't any SGML or XML type language bear a strong semblance to Lisp S-expressions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And doesn't any SGML or XML type language bear a strong semblance to Lisp S-expressions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531452</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>thechao</author>
	<datestamp>1261489560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just read through the patent. (1) The writing is quite clear and understandable -- kudos; (2) the patent is obvious to any member of the field. I cannot believe that any software engineer/equivalent-expert could sit in front of a court and claim that it is not obvious without perjuring themselves. Literally, all this patent does is separate the "control" codes from the "content", where the control codes include indirection information. Even in school when we had to encode data with metadata, this is one of the techniques we used (the other is markup).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just read through the patent .
( 1 ) The writing is quite clear and understandable -- kudos ; ( 2 ) the patent is obvious to any member of the field .
I can not believe that any software engineer/equivalent-expert could sit in front of a court and claim that it is not obvious without perjuring themselves .
Literally , all this patent does is separate the " control " codes from the " content " , where the control codes include indirection information .
Even in school when we had to encode data with metadata , this is one of the techniques we used ( the other is markup ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just read through the patent.
(1) The writing is quite clear and understandable -- kudos; (2) the patent is obvious to any member of the field.
I cannot believe that any software engineer/equivalent-expert could sit in front of a court and claim that it is not obvious without perjuring themselves.
Literally, all this patent does is separate the "control" codes from the "content", where the control codes include indirection information.
Even in school when we had to encode data with metadata, this is one of the techniques we used (the other is markup).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528586</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30532706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30535320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1936214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1936214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1936214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30527970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529374
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528246
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533662
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531226
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528800
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528310
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30535320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528632
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30533698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1936214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1936214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30532706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1936214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1936214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1936214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1936214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1936214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30530922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30531884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1936214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1936214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30528084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1936214.30529186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
