<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_29_2143218</id>
	<title>Nokia Claims Patent Violations in Most Apple Products</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262082480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with an extract from this Associated Press story, as carried by The Globe and Mail: <i>"Nokia is broadening its legal fight with Apple, saying <a href="http://globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/GI.20091229.escenic\_1414080/GIStory/">almost all of the company's products violate its patents</a>, not just the iPhone. Nokia Corp. said Tuesday that it has filed a complaint against Apple Inc. with the US International Trade Commission. The Finnish phone maker says Apple's iPhone, iPods and computers all violate its intellectual property rights."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with an extract from this Associated Press story , as carried by The Globe and Mail : " Nokia is broadening its legal fight with Apple , saying almost all of the company 's products violate its patents , not just the iPhone .
Nokia Corp. said Tuesday that it has filed a complaint against Apple Inc. with the US International Trade Commission .
The Finnish phone maker says Apple 's iPhone , iPods and computers all violate its intellectual property rights .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with an extract from this Associated Press story, as carried by The Globe and Mail: "Nokia is broadening its legal fight with Apple, saying almost all of the company's products violate its patents, not just the iPhone.
Nokia Corp. said Tuesday that it has filed a complaint against Apple Inc. with the US International Trade Commission.
The Finnish phone maker says Apple's iPhone, iPods and computers all violate its intellectual property rights.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587964</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262087040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe. I've got a suspicion that Nokia have rediscovered an old patent for "producing overpriced crap and bribing reviewers by giving away said crap". If that's so, then pretty much all of Apple's production line is in breach - and Apple are pretty much fucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe .
I 've got a suspicion that Nokia have rediscovered an old patent for " producing overpriced crap and bribing reviewers by giving away said crap " .
If that 's so , then pretty much all of Apple 's production line is in breach - and Apple are pretty much fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe.
I've got a suspicion that Nokia have rediscovered an old patent for "producing overpriced crap and bribing reviewers by giving away said crap".
If that's so, then pretty much all of Apple's production line is in breach - and Apple are pretty much fucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589666</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1262098500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's the point here.  What do Macs or iPods have to do with GSM?</p><p>Even limiting things to GSM in the iPhone for a minute, Apple purchased Infineon GSM/EDGE RF chips to be used in the iPhone.</p><p>Is this not Infineons problem?  Is not Infineon the company Nokia should be suing since they are the ones selling unlicensed chips?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's the point here .
What do Macs or iPods have to do with GSM ? Even limiting things to GSM in the iPhone for a minute , Apple purchased Infineon GSM/EDGE RF chips to be used in the iPhone.Is this not Infineons problem ?
Is not Infineon the company Nokia should be suing since they are the ones selling unlicensed chips ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's the point here.
What do Macs or iPods have to do with GSM?Even limiting things to GSM in the iPhone for a minute, Apple purchased Infineon GSM/EDGE RF chips to be used in the iPhone.Is this not Infineons problem?
Is not Infineon the company Nokia should be suing since they are the ones selling unlicensed chips?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588926</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1262092200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question is, is Apple's patent portfolio that usable against Nokia really enforceable? Nokia's clearly is hence why every other manufacturer has been licensing them without hassle.</p></div><p>This argument makes no sense. The fact that others are licensing Nokia's patents is not proof that Nokia's patents are valid or enforceable. Invalid and unenforceable patents get licensed all the time, just to save legal hassles, or because of ignorance. Try using logic next time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is , is Apple 's patent portfolio that usable against Nokia really enforceable ?
Nokia 's clearly is hence why every other manufacturer has been licensing them without hassle.This argument makes no sense .
The fact that others are licensing Nokia 's patents is not proof that Nokia 's patents are valid or enforceable .
Invalid and unenforceable patents get licensed all the time , just to save legal hassles , or because of ignorance .
Try using logic next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is, is Apple's patent portfolio that usable against Nokia really enforceable?
Nokia's clearly is hence why every other manufacturer has been licensing them without hassle.This argument makes no sense.
The fact that others are licensing Nokia's patents is not proof that Nokia's patents are valid or enforceable.
Invalid and unenforceable patents get licensed all the time, just to save legal hassles, or because of ignorance.
Try using logic next time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589552</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262097480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed - when pigs fly, Apple will be successful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed - when pigs fly , Apple will be successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed - when pigs fly, Apple will be successful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588566</id>
	<title>Of course...</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1262090040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know that deep down, in some manner or another, Microsoft is responsible for this...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that deep down , in some manner or another , Microsoft is responsible for this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that deep down, in some manner or another, Microsoft is responsible for this...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589106</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>1 inch punch</author>
	<datestamp>1262093280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your numbers are way off. Apple had  cumulative sales of 50 million iPhone OS devices (iPhones in various versions and iPod Touch) a month or so ago. The general consensus is that about half are iPod Touches, so that leaves about 25 million, and not 10-15 million that you claim.</p><p>But handset sales are only one part of the equation. Apple is recognizing revenue through carrier deals and also through the App Store, and iTunes Music Store. Until now there is no credible competitor for the App Store in terms of sales volume, profit or developer mindshare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your numbers are way off .
Apple had cumulative sales of 50 million iPhone OS devices ( iPhones in various versions and iPod Touch ) a month or so ago .
The general consensus is that about half are iPod Touches , so that leaves about 25 million , and not 10-15 million that you claim.But handset sales are only one part of the equation .
Apple is recognizing revenue through carrier deals and also through the App Store , and iTunes Music Store .
Until now there is no credible competitor for the App Store in terms of sales volume , profit or developer mindshare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your numbers are way off.
Apple had  cumulative sales of 50 million iPhone OS devices (iPhones in various versions and iPod Touch) a month or so ago.
The general consensus is that about half are iPod Touches, so that leaves about 25 million, and not 10-15 million that you claim.But handset sales are only one part of the equation.
Apple is recognizing revenue through carrier deals and also through the App Store, and iTunes Music Store.
Until now there is no credible competitor for the App Store in terms of sales volume, profit or developer mindshare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588012</id>
	<title>This is actually good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262087280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is different, you apple fanboi.
<br> <br>I am all for Nokia here. They spent millions in R&amp;D and Apple thinks they can just come and abuse without respecting the industry-wide gentlemen pact? Fuck you apple, fuck you fanbois.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is different , you apple fanboi .
I am all for Nokia here .
They spent millions in R&amp;D and Apple thinks they can just come and abuse without respecting the industry-wide gentlemen pact ?
Fuck you apple , fuck you fanbois .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is different, you apple fanboi.
I am all for Nokia here.
They spent millions in R&amp;D and Apple thinks they can just come and abuse without respecting the industry-wide gentlemen pact?
Fuck you apple, fuck you fanbois.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592744</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1259852580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MacBook 13" with education discount was $728 yesterday...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MacBook 13 " with education discount was $ 728 yesterday.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MacBook 13" with education discount was $728 yesterday...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589190</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262094060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have heard that Nokia wants Apple to pay more for the patent rights than other manufacturers because Apple has not participated in any of the R&amp;D for mobile technologies over the past 30 years.  Nokia is basically claiming that their cross-license agreements with other manufacturers included an additional cost that was shared among the companies (via additional shared R&amp;D?) and that Apple needs to pay more to account for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have heard that Nokia wants Apple to pay more for the patent rights than other manufacturers because Apple has not participated in any of the R&amp;D for mobile technologies over the past 30 years .
Nokia is basically claiming that their cross-license agreements with other manufacturers included an additional cost that was shared among the companies ( via additional shared R&amp;D ?
) and that Apple needs to pay more to account for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have heard that Nokia wants Apple to pay more for the patent rights than other manufacturers because Apple has not participated in any of the R&amp;D for mobile technologies over the past 30 years.
Nokia is basically claiming that their cross-license agreements with other manufacturers included an additional cost that was shared among the companies (via additional shared R&amp;D?
) and that Apple needs to pay more to account for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587778</id>
	<title>Re:Consistency or hypocrisy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262086320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, I will continue my anti-patent stance, thanks.  I hope these suits result in a massive reform of the patent system, but I have a feeling I will be disappointed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I will continue my anti-patent stance , thanks .
I hope these suits result in a massive reform of the patent system , but I have a feeling I will be disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I will continue my anti-patent stance, thanks.
I hope these suits result in a massive reform of the patent system, but I have a feeling I will be disappointed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589568</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1262097600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple don't have a smart phone either.</p><p>And even on smart phones, Nokia are still at 40\%.</p><p><i>They are talk and text phones with WAP browsers.</i></p><p>You do realise that the vast majority of phones these days do far more than that (i.e., they do Internet, email, web browsing, apps, touch screens and basically all what the Iphone does)? Yet they still get categorised as "feature phones" instead of "smart phones".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple do n't have a smart phone either.And even on smart phones , Nokia are still at 40 \ % .They are talk and text phones with WAP browsers.You do realise that the vast majority of phones these days do far more than that ( i.e. , they do Internet , email , web browsing , apps , touch screens and basically all what the Iphone does ) ?
Yet they still get categorised as " feature phones " instead of " smart phones " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple don't have a smart phone either.And even on smart phones, Nokia are still at 40\%.They are talk and text phones with WAP browsers.You do realise that the vast majority of phones these days do far more than that (i.e., they do Internet, email, web browsing, apps, touch screens and basically all what the Iphone does)?
Yet they still get categorised as "feature phones" instead of "smart phones".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30596806</id>
	<title>greedy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259866680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As overpriced as apples gadgets are, i would say turn-about is fair play, apple should pay.  greedy bastards</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As overpriced as apples gadgets are , i would say turn-about is fair play , apple should pay .
greedy bastards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As overpriced as apples gadgets are, i would say turn-about is fair play, apple should pay.
greedy bastards</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590148</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong! Nokia wanted to extort Apple.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262103180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So rather than Apple going to the courts BEFORE making the iPhone to settle this "unfair licensing" matter, they just decided to go ahead and make it and worry about small details like patent licensing after the fact? Yeah, great idea.</p><p>Sadly, the apple fanboys crawling out of the woodwork to defend any action apple takes was expected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So rather than Apple going to the courts BEFORE making the iPhone to settle this " unfair licensing " matter , they just decided to go ahead and make it and worry about small details like patent licensing after the fact ?
Yeah , great idea.Sadly , the apple fanboys crawling out of the woodwork to defend any action apple takes was expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So rather than Apple going to the courts BEFORE making the iPhone to settle this "unfair licensing" matter, they just decided to go ahead and make it and worry about small details like patent licensing after the fact?
Yeah, great idea.Sadly, the apple fanboys crawling out of the woodwork to defend any action apple takes was expected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589110</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1262093280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's certainly Apple's argument yes, but whether it has any validity is really down to the GSM Association and the courts to decide, the best anyone on Slashdot can do is merely speculate in this respect.</p><p>My point was more aimed in response to the idea that Apple will be able to defend itself with mere counter-suits. As stated in my original post above, I don't think they are well positioned to do so. The fact their current counter-suit is so weak in terms of the patents it uses is a pretty good example of why Apple doesn't seem in a good position to fight patent with patent in this particular case.</p><p>You cannot claim Apple's patents are far more valuable than the fee other handset manufacturers have paid because you do not know the terms of the deal Nokia has made with other manufacturers, nor do I believe the patents Nokia has requested to license from Apple have been published. It is rather dishonest to suggest this unless you are working at Nokia and know what their licensing terms with the 3rd parties are and know what they have requests from Apple? Is there really anything Apple could license to Nokia that is worth any more than the patents which Nokia is suing over which underly major essential components of Apple's flagship devices?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's certainly Apple 's argument yes , but whether it has any validity is really down to the GSM Association and the courts to decide , the best anyone on Slashdot can do is merely speculate in this respect.My point was more aimed in response to the idea that Apple will be able to defend itself with mere counter-suits .
As stated in my original post above , I do n't think they are well positioned to do so .
The fact their current counter-suit is so weak in terms of the patents it uses is a pretty good example of why Apple does n't seem in a good position to fight patent with patent in this particular case.You can not claim Apple 's patents are far more valuable than the fee other handset manufacturers have paid because you do not know the terms of the deal Nokia has made with other manufacturers , nor do I believe the patents Nokia has requested to license from Apple have been published .
It is rather dishonest to suggest this unless you are working at Nokia and know what their licensing terms with the 3rd parties are and know what they have requests from Apple ?
Is there really anything Apple could license to Nokia that is worth any more than the patents which Nokia is suing over which underly major essential components of Apple 's flagship devices ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's certainly Apple's argument yes, but whether it has any validity is really down to the GSM Association and the courts to decide, the best anyone on Slashdot can do is merely speculate in this respect.My point was more aimed in response to the idea that Apple will be able to defend itself with mere counter-suits.
As stated in my original post above, I don't think they are well positioned to do so.
The fact their current counter-suit is so weak in terms of the patents it uses is a pretty good example of why Apple doesn't seem in a good position to fight patent with patent in this particular case.You cannot claim Apple's patents are far more valuable than the fee other handset manufacturers have paid because you do not know the terms of the deal Nokia has made with other manufacturers, nor do I believe the patents Nokia has requested to license from Apple have been published.
It is rather dishonest to suggest this unless you are working at Nokia and know what their licensing terms with the 3rd parties are and know what they have requests from Apple?
Is there really anything Apple could license to Nokia that is worth any more than the patents which Nokia is suing over which underly major essential components of Apple's flagship devices?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589598</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262097840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once took part in a meeting at IBM where Sun came in and was accusing IBM of violating a patent.  You never want to start a conversation with an IBM patent lawyer that way.</p><p>The lawyers response was, in effect: "we have thousands of patents.  Do you really think we can't find a few that you're violating?"</p><p>I wanna say they signed a sweetheart cross-licensing deal, which was pretty normal back then.  Usually IBM paid pretty well.  But *only* pretty well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once took part in a meeting at IBM where Sun came in and was accusing IBM of violating a patent .
You never want to start a conversation with an IBM patent lawyer that way.The lawyers response was , in effect : " we have thousands of patents .
Do you really think we ca n't find a few that you 're violating ?
" I wan na say they signed a sweetheart cross-licensing deal , which was pretty normal back then .
Usually IBM paid pretty well .
But * only * pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once took part in a meeting at IBM where Sun came in and was accusing IBM of violating a patent.
You never want to start a conversation with an IBM patent lawyer that way.The lawyers response was, in effect: "we have thousands of patents.
Do you really think we can't find a few that you're violating?
"I wanna say they signed a sweetheart cross-licensing deal, which was pretty normal back then.
Usually IBM paid pretty well.
But *only* pretty well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590988</id>
	<title>But not the Goertzel algorithm...</title>
	<author>maxiste</author>
	<datestamp>1262114100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite stupid, but I'm working on a embedded work of dtmf-signal recognition with a DTMF decoder found on <a href="http://johnetherton.com/projects/pys60-dtmf-detector" title="johnetherton.com" rel="nofollow">http://johnetherton.com/projects/pys60-dtmf-detector</a> [johnetherton.com], for Ubuntu, in python. I find this Python module working for Nokia S60... They had python working on theirs cell-phone, quite impressive...

Those who know story about the D "button" on a phone-pad to drop all non-important call and let you access to a destination, is a old story starting from March 1942<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... But since Goertzel is a universal algorithm,.. Don't try to find out stupid thing to decode signal, and even if Newton is not embedded in this lovely-iPhone, everything fall on it and not we fall-for...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite stupid , but I 'm working on a embedded work of dtmf-signal recognition with a DTMF decoder found on http : //johnetherton.com/projects/pys60-dtmf-detector [ johnetherton.com ] , for Ubuntu , in python .
I find this Python module working for Nokia S60... They had python working on theirs cell-phone , quite impressive.. . Those who know story about the D " button " on a phone-pad to drop all non-important call and let you access to a destination , is a old story starting from March 1942 ... But since Goertzel is a universal algorithm,.. Do n't try to find out stupid thing to decode signal , and even if Newton is not embedded in this lovely-iPhone , everything fall on it and not we fall-for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite stupid, but I'm working on a embedded work of dtmf-signal recognition with a DTMF decoder found on http://johnetherton.com/projects/pys60-dtmf-detector [johnetherton.com], for Ubuntu, in python.
I find this Python module working for Nokia S60... They had python working on theirs cell-phone, quite impressive...

Those who know story about the D "button" on a phone-pad to drop all non-important call and let you access to a destination, is a old story starting from March 1942 ... But since Goertzel is a universal algorithm,.. Don't try to find out stupid thing to decode signal, and even if Newton is not embedded in this lovely-iPhone, everything fall on it and not we fall-for...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588588</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262090160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and even then the iPhone will still be overpriced.  Of course, that $50 price point will probably only happen if Nokia wins and the iPhone is rendered useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and even then the iPhone will still be overpriced .
Of course , that $ 50 price point will probably only happen if Nokia wins and the iPhone is rendered useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and even then the iPhone will still be overpriced.
Of course, that $50 price point will probably only happen if Nokia wins and the iPhone is rendered useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591024</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1262114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nokia's grasping at straws here, because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $50 price point, they're toast.</p></div><p>When the iPhone gets down to the $50 price point, it will be because other manufacturers' offerings are sufficiently competitive with the iPhone to force its price down, and insofar as a considerable part of the iPhone's success, like the iPod's, is that <i>it's fashionable</i>, getting down to the range where it's the default throwaway free phone will destroy its exclusive cachet. Despite considerable effort to the contrary by the major players, the mobile phone market is still quite competitive. There's no overwhelmingly dominant single player, and there's not likely to be one any time soon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia 's grasping at straws here , because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $ 50 price point , they 're toast.When the iPhone gets down to the $ 50 price point , it will be because other manufacturers ' offerings are sufficiently competitive with the iPhone to force its price down , and insofar as a considerable part of the iPhone 's success , like the iPod 's , is that it 's fashionable , getting down to the range where it 's the default throwaway free phone will destroy its exclusive cachet .
Despite considerable effort to the contrary by the major players , the mobile phone market is still quite competitive .
There 's no overwhelmingly dominant single player , and there 's not likely to be one any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia's grasping at straws here, because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $50 price point, they're toast.When the iPhone gets down to the $50 price point, it will be because other manufacturers' offerings are sufficiently competitive with the iPhone to force its price down, and insofar as a considerable part of the iPhone's success, like the iPod's, is that it's fashionable, getting down to the range where it's the default throwaway free phone will destroy its exclusive cachet.
Despite considerable effort to the contrary by the major players, the mobile phone market is still quite competitive.
There's no overwhelmingly dominant single player, and there's not likely to be one any time soon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591534</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1259834580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The patent is not on the chips, probably. And the burden of paying the license is to the one that sells to customers, not subcontractor. If Apple want they can get the cash back from Infineon for breach of contract, if the contract mentions possible patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent is not on the chips , probably .
And the burden of paying the license is to the one that sells to customers , not subcontractor .
If Apple want they can get the cash back from Infineon for breach of contract , if the contract mentions possible patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent is not on the chips, probably.
And the burden of paying the license is to the one that sells to customers, not subcontractor.
If Apple want they can get the cash back from Infineon for breach of contract, if the contract mentions possible patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591242</id>
	<title>Will be interesting to follow.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1259872680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the Nokia patents are old, non-obvious and already established. Its not like patents on "doing thing x, but this time on the internet!". Why Apple decided to spit in Nokias face i dont really understand. They cant win this one, especially since the US is trying to get software patents acknowledged in the EU. Now is really not the time to play the protectionist game so i dont think political pressure will be put into the courts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the Nokia patents are old , non-obvious and already established .
Its not like patents on " doing thing x , but this time on the internet ! " .
Why Apple decided to spit in Nokias face i dont really understand .
They cant win this one , especially since the US is trying to get software patents acknowledged in the EU .
Now is really not the time to play the protectionist game so i dont think political pressure will be put into the courts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the Nokia patents are old, non-obvious and already established.
Its not like patents on "doing thing x, but this time on the internet!".
Why Apple decided to spit in Nokias face i dont really understand.
They cant win this one, especially since the US is trying to get software patents acknowledged in the EU.
Now is really not the time to play the protectionist game so i dont think political pressure will be put into the courts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588782</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>nneonneo</author>
	<datestamp>1262091180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia demanded that Apple cross-license several of its patents in return for licensing the key GSM patents, something it has not asked other manufacturers to do. Nokia therefore singled out Apple for licensing terms despite promising the GSM Alliance that it would license these patents under fair and non-discriminatory terms; singling out Apple and trying to force a cross-licensing deal is not non-discriminatory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia demanded that Apple cross-license several of its patents in return for licensing the key GSM patents , something it has not asked other manufacturers to do .
Nokia therefore singled out Apple for licensing terms despite promising the GSM Alliance that it would license these patents under fair and non-discriminatory terms ; singling out Apple and trying to force a cross-licensing deal is not non-discriminatory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia demanded that Apple cross-license several of its patents in return for licensing the key GSM patents, something it has not asked other manufacturers to do.
Nokia therefore singled out Apple for licensing terms despite promising the GSM Alliance that it would license these patents under fair and non-discriminatory terms; singling out Apple and trying to force a cross-licensing deal is not non-discriminatory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589408</id>
	<title>would you like to play a game?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262096220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2 big companies playing tic tac toe on a large scale.  it will always be a cats game and they will always play again.  does no one learn the lessons of WOPR!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 big companies playing tic tac toe on a large scale .
it will always be a cats game and they will always play again .
does no one learn the lessons of WOPR !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 big companies playing tic tac toe on a large scale.
it will always be a cats game and they will always play again.
does no one learn the lessons of WOPR!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588894</id>
	<title>Wrong! Nokia wanted to extort Apple.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262092020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The issue Apple faces is that the patents Nokia were originally pursuing were patents that every single other mobile manufacturer was happy to license.</i> </p><p>Actually no. Nokia wanted Apple to give them much more than "every other single" manufacturer. Nokia wanted to charge Apple 3x the fair and reasonable rate they charged others. They also wanted free access to Apple tech. Here are just a few of Apple's complaints:
<br> <br>
Article 81. In Particular, in or about the spring of 2008, Nokia demanded that, as part of it&rsquo;s compensation for licensing Nokia&rsquo;s portfolio of purported essential patents, <b>Apple must grant Nokia a license to a particular number of Apple non-standards-essential patents</b>...Apple immediately rejected the proposal and reiterated Apple&rsquo;s position that Nokia&rsquo;s F/RAND obligations required it to licence Nokia&rsquo;s purportedly essential technologies.
<br> <br>
Article 82.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...In or about May 2009, <b>Nokia demanded a royalty approximately three times as much as the royalty proposed the prior spring, which was itself in excess of a F/RAND rate</b>, as well as &ldquo;picks&rsquo; to Apple&rsquo;s non-standards-essential patents.

<br> <br>

Naughty Nokia. Go to your room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue Apple faces is that the patents Nokia were originally pursuing were patents that every single other mobile manufacturer was happy to license .
Actually no .
Nokia wanted Apple to give them much more than " every other single " manufacturer .
Nokia wanted to charge Apple 3x the fair and reasonable rate they charged others .
They also wanted free access to Apple tech .
Here are just a few of Apple 's complaints : Article 81 .
In Particular , in or about the spring of 2008 , Nokia demanded that , as part of it    s compensation for licensing Nokia    s portfolio of purported essential patents , Apple must grant Nokia a license to a particular number of Apple non-standards-essential patents...Apple immediately rejected the proposal and reiterated Apple    s position that Nokia    s F/RAND obligations required it to licence Nokia    s purportedly essential technologies .
Article 82 .
...In or about May 2009 , Nokia demanded a royalty approximately three times as much as the royalty proposed the prior spring , which was itself in excess of a F/RAND rate , as well as    picks    to Apple    s non-standards-essential patents .
Naughty Nokia .
Go to your room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The issue Apple faces is that the patents Nokia were originally pursuing were patents that every single other mobile manufacturer was happy to license.
Actually no.
Nokia wanted Apple to give them much more than "every other single" manufacturer.
Nokia wanted to charge Apple 3x the fair and reasonable rate they charged others.
They also wanted free access to Apple tech.
Here are just a few of Apple's complaints:
 
Article 81.
In Particular, in or about the spring of 2008, Nokia demanded that, as part of it’s compensation for licensing Nokia’s portfolio of purported essential patents, Apple must grant Nokia a license to a particular number of Apple non-standards-essential patents...Apple immediately rejected the proposal and reiterated Apple’s position that Nokia’s F/RAND obligations required it to licence Nokia’s purportedly essential technologies.
Article 82.
...In or about May 2009, Nokia demanded a royalty approximately three times as much as the royalty proposed the prior spring, which was itself in excess of a F/RAND rate, as well as “picks’ to Apple’s non-standards-essential patents.
Naughty Nokia.
Go to your room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589132</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong! Nokia wanted to extort Apple.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262093580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is merely Apple's argument, not fact.</p><p>Whether the argument is valid is down to the courts, and the GSM association to decide. Even then you may note that in those very quotes Apple themselves note that they were offered a different, much lower figure originally but still refused it citing it was excessive.</p><p>So the question for the courts/GSM association is, were the rates every really excessive, or is that just a convenient excuse that Apple has been using to try and actually pay an unreasonably low fee?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is merely Apple 's argument , not fact.Whether the argument is valid is down to the courts , and the GSM association to decide .
Even then you may note that in those very quotes Apple themselves note that they were offered a different , much lower figure originally but still refused it citing it was excessive.So the question for the courts/GSM association is , were the rates every really excessive , or is that just a convenient excuse that Apple has been using to try and actually pay an unreasonably low fee ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is merely Apple's argument, not fact.Whether the argument is valid is down to the courts, and the GSM association to decide.
Even then you may note that in those very quotes Apple themselves note that they were offered a different, much lower figure originally but still refused it citing it was excessive.So the question for the courts/GSM association is, were the rates every really excessive, or is that just a convenient excuse that Apple has been using to try and actually pay an unreasonably low fee?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588008</id>
	<title>Re:Consistency or hypocrisy?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1262087220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The two are not necessarily exclusive. If you hate patents, having the big patent supporters beat each other to death with them is a decent step to getting rid of them. The best possible outcome would be a multiple hundred billion volley of lawsuits between all of the biggies until they bring each other to their knees. If they die, we win. If they wise up and back away from supporting patents, we win. If they clog the courts so full that they can't function, we win. Triple bonus points if they all decide the real problem is the USPTO and they sue it to death.</p><p>New meme, trademark confusion. Be sure to prominently mix and match trademarks when talking to various companies. Perhaps we can get a corporate world war started<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The two are not necessarily exclusive .
If you hate patents , having the big patent supporters beat each other to death with them is a decent step to getting rid of them .
The best possible outcome would be a multiple hundred billion volley of lawsuits between all of the biggies until they bring each other to their knees .
If they die , we win .
If they wise up and back away from supporting patents , we win .
If they clog the courts so full that they ca n't function , we win .
Triple bonus points if they all decide the real problem is the USPTO and they sue it to death.New meme , trademark confusion .
Be sure to prominently mix and match trademarks when talking to various companies .
Perhaps we can get a corporate world war started : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two are not necessarily exclusive.
If you hate patents, having the big patent supporters beat each other to death with them is a decent step to getting rid of them.
The best possible outcome would be a multiple hundred billion volley of lawsuits between all of the biggies until they bring each other to their knees.
If they die, we win.
If they wise up and back away from supporting patents, we win.
If they clog the courts so full that they can't function, we win.
Triple bonus points if they all decide the real problem is the USPTO and they sue it to death.New meme, trademark confusion.
Be sure to prominently mix and match trademarks when talking to various companies.
Perhaps we can get a corporate world war started :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590964</id>
	<title>Re:What this is really about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262113620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So:</p><p>Apple wants Nokia's patents.<br>Apple refuses to share their patents with Nokia.</p><p>Nokia has patent sharing with the other handset manufacturers.  Apple wants to use Nokia's R&amp;D without allowing Nokia to use Apple's R&amp;D.  Why is Nokia the bad guy here?</p><p>Just to let you Apple fanboys know, Nokia is the most open handset manufacturer.  Both Symbian and Maemo are mostly open source.  In both of them, you can install any app you want.  The iphone is locked down, and allows you to install apps from only one place.  Both of these models are fine, but its not as if Nokia is the super-proprietary company of the two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So : Apple wants Nokia 's patents.Apple refuses to share their patents with Nokia.Nokia has patent sharing with the other handset manufacturers .
Apple wants to use Nokia 's R&amp;D without allowing Nokia to use Apple 's R&amp;D .
Why is Nokia the bad guy here ? Just to let you Apple fanboys know , Nokia is the most open handset manufacturer .
Both Symbian and Maemo are mostly open source .
In both of them , you can install any app you want .
The iphone is locked down , and allows you to install apps from only one place .
Both of these models are fine , but its not as if Nokia is the super-proprietary company of the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So:Apple wants Nokia's patents.Apple refuses to share their patents with Nokia.Nokia has patent sharing with the other handset manufacturers.
Apple wants to use Nokia's R&amp;D without allowing Nokia to use Apple's R&amp;D.
Why is Nokia the bad guy here?Just to let you Apple fanboys know, Nokia is the most open handset manufacturer.
Both Symbian and Maemo are mostly open source.
In both of them, you can install any app you want.
The iphone is locked down, and allows you to install apps from only one place.
Both of these models are fine, but its not as if Nokia is the super-proprietary company of the two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738</id>
	<title>Consistency or hypocrisy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262086200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So is Slashdot posters going to be consistent in their anti-patent stances or are they going to make excuses about how this is okay because it's going after Apple (like they do when Microsoft gets sued for patent infringement).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So is Slashdot posters going to be consistent in their anti-patent stances or are they going to make excuses about how this is okay because it 's going after Apple ( like they do when Microsoft gets sued for patent infringement ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is Slashdot posters going to be consistent in their anti-patent stances or are they going to make excuses about how this is okay because it's going after Apple (like they do when Microsoft gets sued for patent infringement).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589222</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262094480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the end of the day, it's the profits that matters more. More market share is expected to help generate that. In the case you're illustrating, you can go one step further and look at actual profits each year from 2007 to now. Of course, you should separate out the actual profits from none iPhone products get a fair picture of what that 4\% is generating vs Nokia's 52\% world market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end of the day , it 's the profits that matters more .
More market share is expected to help generate that .
In the case you 're illustrating , you can go one step further and look at actual profits each year from 2007 to now .
Of course , you should separate out the actual profits from none iPhone products get a fair picture of what that 4 \ % is generating vs Nokia 's 52 \ % world market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the end of the day, it's the profits that matters more.
More market share is expected to help generate that.
In the case you're illustrating, you can go one step further and look at actual profits each year from 2007 to now.
Of course, you should separate out the actual profits from none iPhone products get a fair picture of what that 4\% is generating vs Nokia's 52\% world market share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589830</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1262099940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bear in mind <i>why</i> Apple hasn't licensed these patents yet. If their side of the story (and their counter-suits) are to be believed, then it's because Nokia won't license them under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable\_and\_Non\_Discriminatory\_Licensing" title="wikipedia.org">Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory</a> [wikipedia.org] (RAND) terms.</p><p>All indications that Apple wants to pay the same licensing fee that Sony, Motorola, etc have paid. Nokia on the other hand doesn't want the fee - they want to cross-license Apple's patents - which are far more valuable than any fee that other handset manufacturers have paid. Nokia is violating RAND by refusing to license the necessary patents to Apple as they have the other handset manufacturers. Under RAND terms, Apple is under no obligation to cross-license to get access to Nokia's patents, although they still have the option of doing so if they'd like (and here's a hint, they don't want to).</p><p>For that reason, even if Nokia has a stronger patent portfolio, it's anyone's guess how this will finally go. The larger GSM Association requires that all of this stuff be offered under RAND terms, so there may be consequences for Nokia if they keep this up.</p></div><p>Finally! Someone with a brain on Slashdot.org regarding this legal dispute.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bear in mind why Apple has n't licensed these patents yet .
If their side of the story ( and their counter-suits ) are to be believed , then it 's because Nokia wo n't license them under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory [ wikipedia.org ] ( RAND ) terms.All indications that Apple wants to pay the same licensing fee that Sony , Motorola , etc have paid .
Nokia on the other hand does n't want the fee - they want to cross-license Apple 's patents - which are far more valuable than any fee that other handset manufacturers have paid .
Nokia is violating RAND by refusing to license the necessary patents to Apple as they have the other handset manufacturers .
Under RAND terms , Apple is under no obligation to cross-license to get access to Nokia 's patents , although they still have the option of doing so if they 'd like ( and here 's a hint , they do n't want to ) .For that reason , even if Nokia has a stronger patent portfolio , it 's anyone 's guess how this will finally go .
The larger GSM Association requires that all of this stuff be offered under RAND terms , so there may be consequences for Nokia if they keep this up.Finally !
Someone with a brain on Slashdot.org regarding this legal dispute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bear in mind why Apple hasn't licensed these patents yet.
If their side of the story (and their counter-suits) are to be believed, then it's because Nokia won't license them under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory [wikipedia.org] (RAND) terms.All indications that Apple wants to pay the same licensing fee that Sony, Motorola, etc have paid.
Nokia on the other hand doesn't want the fee - they want to cross-license Apple's patents - which are far more valuable than any fee that other handset manufacturers have paid.
Nokia is violating RAND by refusing to license the necessary patents to Apple as they have the other handset manufacturers.
Under RAND terms, Apple is under no obligation to cross-license to get access to Nokia's patents, although they still have the option of doing so if they'd like (and here's a hint, they don't want to).For that reason, even if Nokia has a stronger patent portfolio, it's anyone's guess how this will finally go.
The larger GSM Association requires that all of this stuff be offered under RAND terms, so there may be consequences for Nokia if they keep this up.Finally!
Someone with a brain on Slashdot.org regarding this legal dispute.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589236</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1262094540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All indications that Apple wants to pay the same licensing fee that Sony, Motorola, etc have paid. Nokia on the other hand doesn't want the fee - they want to cross-license Apple's patents - which are far more valuable than any fee that other handset manufacturers have paid.</p></div><p>And how does this excuse Apple's unlicensed usage of the patented technology?<br>If Nokia is being unfair, Apple should take it to Court (or to whatever industry body regulates these disputes) without violating Nokia's patents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All indications that Apple wants to pay the same licensing fee that Sony , Motorola , etc have paid .
Nokia on the other hand does n't want the fee - they want to cross-license Apple 's patents - which are far more valuable than any fee that other handset manufacturers have paid.And how does this excuse Apple 's unlicensed usage of the patented technology ? If Nokia is being unfair , Apple should take it to Court ( or to whatever industry body regulates these disputes ) without violating Nokia 's patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All indications that Apple wants to pay the same licensing fee that Sony, Motorola, etc have paid.
Nokia on the other hand doesn't want the fee - they want to cross-license Apple's patents - which are far more valuable than any fee that other handset manufacturers have paid.And how does this excuse Apple's unlicensed usage of the patented technology?If Nokia is being unfair, Apple should take it to Court (or to whatever industry body regulates these disputes) without violating Nokia's patents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588922</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1262092140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate to break it to you but most of those phones that Nokia sells are "NOT" smartphones. They are talk and text phones with WAP browsers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to break it to you but most of those phones that Nokia sells are " NOT " smartphones .
They are talk and text phones with WAP browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to break it to you but most of those phones that Nokia sells are "NOT" smartphones.
They are talk and text phones with WAP browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1262088420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue Apple faces is that the patents Nokia were originally pursuing were patents that every single other mobile manufacturer was happy to license.</p><p>This suggests that Nokia actually has a strong case and there's clearly a good reason for Nokia doing this whilst not needing to go after other phone manufacturers. Despite all the iHype each iteration of the iPhone has still only sold around 10mill to 15mill handsets which is pretty much par for the course for high end phones like this, although Apple likes to group the separate handsets together into "the iPhone" and suggest sales of 40mill whilst separating it's opponents iterations (for example the N95, N96 iterations) to show itself as more of a success story than the figures really put it at.</p><p>The question is, is Apple's patent portfolio that usable against Nokia really enforceable? Nokia's clearly is hence why every other manufacturer has been licensing them without hassle. Nokia no doubt looked into this point long before they started the patent action against Apple and clearly seem to believe they have a case. What's more, as Apple isn't playing nicely with the entire rest of the cell phone market Apple may find it's not just Nokia it's up against but the likes of Sony Ericsson, Motorola and so forth also. If Apple starts digging into it's patent portfolio to use against Nokia it will be a cause for concern for other companies that could potentially infringe these patents and Apple may find itself up against all these companies also. Again, this is not a problem in Nokia's case, because everyone who could be threatened by Nokia's patents is already licensing them. The only chance Apple has in fighting this with counter-cases is if it can find patents that everyone but Nokia licenses from them, but as Apple's counter-patents so far have been extremely minor it seems highly unlikely Apple has any real threatening usable patents to counter-sue with without bringing to bear on it the cross hairs of perhaps not just the rest of the mobile phone industry who would also be at threat, but from large segments of the IT industry including other giants such as IBM and Microsoft.</p><p>I applaud what Apple has done to the cell phone market in giving it a much needed wake up call and taking mobile phones forward, but that doesn't give it some right to break all the rules of the phone market. Really, the sensible solution for Apple would be to just license the patents like every other cell phone manufacturer does rather than continuing to pretend it's special. It can't on one hand complain that Nokia wishes to be able to use some of their technology as part of the license agreement and suggest that as such Nokia is showing a lack of innovation all the while whilst doing exactly that themselves by using Nokia's technology without license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue Apple faces is that the patents Nokia were originally pursuing were patents that every single other mobile manufacturer was happy to license.This suggests that Nokia actually has a strong case and there 's clearly a good reason for Nokia doing this whilst not needing to go after other phone manufacturers .
Despite all the iHype each iteration of the iPhone has still only sold around 10mill to 15mill handsets which is pretty much par for the course for high end phones like this , although Apple likes to group the separate handsets together into " the iPhone " and suggest sales of 40mill whilst separating it 's opponents iterations ( for example the N95 , N96 iterations ) to show itself as more of a success story than the figures really put it at.The question is , is Apple 's patent portfolio that usable against Nokia really enforceable ?
Nokia 's clearly is hence why every other manufacturer has been licensing them without hassle .
Nokia no doubt looked into this point long before they started the patent action against Apple and clearly seem to believe they have a case .
What 's more , as Apple is n't playing nicely with the entire rest of the cell phone market Apple may find it 's not just Nokia it 's up against but the likes of Sony Ericsson , Motorola and so forth also .
If Apple starts digging into it 's patent portfolio to use against Nokia it will be a cause for concern for other companies that could potentially infringe these patents and Apple may find itself up against all these companies also .
Again , this is not a problem in Nokia 's case , because everyone who could be threatened by Nokia 's patents is already licensing them .
The only chance Apple has in fighting this with counter-cases is if it can find patents that everyone but Nokia licenses from them , but as Apple 's counter-patents so far have been extremely minor it seems highly unlikely Apple has any real threatening usable patents to counter-sue with without bringing to bear on it the cross hairs of perhaps not just the rest of the mobile phone industry who would also be at threat , but from large segments of the IT industry including other giants such as IBM and Microsoft.I applaud what Apple has done to the cell phone market in giving it a much needed wake up call and taking mobile phones forward , but that does n't give it some right to break all the rules of the phone market .
Really , the sensible solution for Apple would be to just license the patents like every other cell phone manufacturer does rather than continuing to pretend it 's special .
It ca n't on one hand complain that Nokia wishes to be able to use some of their technology as part of the license agreement and suggest that as such Nokia is showing a lack of innovation all the while whilst doing exactly that themselves by using Nokia 's technology without license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue Apple faces is that the patents Nokia were originally pursuing were patents that every single other mobile manufacturer was happy to license.This suggests that Nokia actually has a strong case and there's clearly a good reason for Nokia doing this whilst not needing to go after other phone manufacturers.
Despite all the iHype each iteration of the iPhone has still only sold around 10mill to 15mill handsets which is pretty much par for the course for high end phones like this, although Apple likes to group the separate handsets together into "the iPhone" and suggest sales of 40mill whilst separating it's opponents iterations (for example the N95, N96 iterations) to show itself as more of a success story than the figures really put it at.The question is, is Apple's patent portfolio that usable against Nokia really enforceable?
Nokia's clearly is hence why every other manufacturer has been licensing them without hassle.
Nokia no doubt looked into this point long before they started the patent action against Apple and clearly seem to believe they have a case.
What's more, as Apple isn't playing nicely with the entire rest of the cell phone market Apple may find it's not just Nokia it's up against but the likes of Sony Ericsson, Motorola and so forth also.
If Apple starts digging into it's patent portfolio to use against Nokia it will be a cause for concern for other companies that could potentially infringe these patents and Apple may find itself up against all these companies also.
Again, this is not a problem in Nokia's case, because everyone who could be threatened by Nokia's patents is already licensing them.
The only chance Apple has in fighting this with counter-cases is if it can find patents that everyone but Nokia licenses from them, but as Apple's counter-patents so far have been extremely minor it seems highly unlikely Apple has any real threatening usable patents to counter-sue with without bringing to bear on it the cross hairs of perhaps not just the rest of the mobile phone industry who would also be at threat, but from large segments of the IT industry including other giants such as IBM and Microsoft.I applaud what Apple has done to the cell phone market in giving it a much needed wake up call and taking mobile phones forward, but that doesn't give it some right to break all the rules of the phone market.
Really, the sensible solution for Apple would be to just license the patents like every other cell phone manufacturer does rather than continuing to pretend it's special.
It can't on one hand complain that Nokia wishes to be able to use some of their technology as part of the license agreement and suggest that as such Nokia is showing a lack of innovation all the while whilst doing exactly that themselves by using Nokia's technology without license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588044</id>
	<title>Re:Consistency or hypocrisy?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262087400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you going to stab your next victim, or are you going to shoot them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you going to stab your next victim , or are you going to shoot them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you going to stab your next victim, or are you going to shoot them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591872</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1259841060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all depends on the contract, but selling unlicensed tech is very common. After all, the much larger device manufacturer may be able to get the needed licenses from cross-licensing deals much cheaper.</p><p>This is one of the reasons the patent systems sucks: it was supposed to give inventors some time to cash in on the invention, but now big companies just use the system to keep new smaller competitors out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all depends on the contract , but selling unlicensed tech is very common .
After all , the much larger device manufacturer may be able to get the needed licenses from cross-licensing deals much cheaper.This is one of the reasons the patent systems sucks : it was supposed to give inventors some time to cash in on the invention , but now big companies just use the system to keep new smaller competitors out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all depends on the contract, but selling unlicensed tech is very common.
After all, the much larger device manufacturer may be able to get the needed licenses from cross-licensing deals much cheaper.This is one of the reasons the patent systems sucks: it was supposed to give inventors some time to cash in on the invention, but now big companies just use the system to keep new smaller competitors out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589518</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262097180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPhone isn't getting down to a $50 price point anytime soon. It's quite possible that the Universe will expire from heat death before it happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone is n't getting down to a $ 50 price point anytime soon .
It 's quite possible that the Universe will expire from heat death before it happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone isn't getting down to a $50 price point anytime soon.
It's quite possible that the Universe will expire from heat death before it happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589478</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>snero3</author>
	<datestamp>1262096820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Are we talking about the same company. I am not an anti apple person <i>I own a PB and PM </i> but never have apple products been cheap. They \_ALWAYS\_ sell at a premium compared to similar products in the market. </p><p> It looks like these are patents for hardware that the rest of the industry already pays royalties for.  This smells like Apple trying to treat itself differently from everyone else not the currently market leader "grasping at straws"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we talking about the same company .
I am not an anti apple person I own a PB and PM but never have apple products been cheap .
They \ _ALWAYS \ _ sell at a premium compared to similar products in the market .
It looks like these are patents for hardware that the rest of the industry already pays royalties for .
This smells like Apple trying to treat itself differently from everyone else not the currently market leader " grasping at straws "</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Are we talking about the same company.
I am not an anti apple person I own a PB and PM  but never have apple products been cheap.
They \_ALWAYS\_ sell at a premium compared to similar products in the market.
It looks like these are patents for hardware that the rest of the industry already pays royalties for.
This smells like Apple trying to treat itself differently from everyone else not the currently market leader "grasping at straws"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588614</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1262090340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I forgot to mention, the top 16 most popular cell phones in the world are Nokias, with a combined 30\% of the market. That's just until another manufacturer's device pops onto the list.  Nokia has 25 of the top 29 most popular cell phone models in the world, and the iPhone is still a ways down on that list, right in there with the Sony-Ericsson G700, W380, and a half dozen Nokias.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I forgot to mention , the top 16 most popular cell phones in the world are Nokias , with a combined 30 \ % of the market .
That 's just until another manufacturer 's device pops onto the list .
Nokia has 25 of the top 29 most popular cell phone models in the world , and the iPhone is still a ways down on that list , right in there with the Sony-Ericsson G700 , W380 , and a half dozen Nokias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I forgot to mention, the top 16 most popular cell phones in the world are Nokias, with a combined 30\% of the market.
That's just until another manufacturer's device pops onto the list.
Nokia has 25 of the top 29 most popular cell phone models in the world, and the iPhone is still a ways down on that list, right in there with the Sony-Ericsson G700, W380, and a half dozen Nokias.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592678</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1259852040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Others were happy to license, under RAND, but nokia insisted not only on higher than normal RAND fees, but also a cross licensing deal.  instead, apple created their own IP around Nokia's patents, combined with leveraging the actual chips from 3rd paties who already had the licensing rights including resale and remanufacture.  Apple also challenged some of the patents as obvious or unpatentable ideas and simply refused to pay the hiked rates nokia insited on.</p><p>I've gone through the bulk of patents Nokia is claiming they hold, and they are weak in most cases, or related to components apple did not themselves design or make and are licensed properly by others who sold apple those chips.  On the counter, Apple has strong and clear patents they're throwing back at nokia, at least one of which has already been upheld in court.  Apple's patents also hold a much higer per-device license fee than even the GMS liucenses nokia is throwing around.  What i can find NO links to is what Nokia has lobbed back...  Between Apple, Intel, NeXT, BSD, and Open Source code bases, I can't imagine much in their system that's both patentable, and not already owned by one of those...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Others were happy to license , under RAND , but nokia insisted not only on higher than normal RAND fees , but also a cross licensing deal .
instead , apple created their own IP around Nokia 's patents , combined with leveraging the actual chips from 3rd paties who already had the licensing rights including resale and remanufacture .
Apple also challenged some of the patents as obvious or unpatentable ideas and simply refused to pay the hiked rates nokia insited on.I 've gone through the bulk of patents Nokia is claiming they hold , and they are weak in most cases , or related to components apple did not themselves design or make and are licensed properly by others who sold apple those chips .
On the counter , Apple has strong and clear patents they 're throwing back at nokia , at least one of which has already been upheld in court .
Apple 's patents also hold a much higer per-device license fee than even the GMS liucenses nokia is throwing around .
What i can find NO links to is what Nokia has lobbed back... Between Apple , Intel , NeXT , BSD , and Open Source code bases , I ca n't imagine much in their system that 's both patentable , and not already owned by one of those.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Others were happy to license, under RAND, but nokia insisted not only on higher than normal RAND fees, but also a cross licensing deal.
instead, apple created their own IP around Nokia's patents, combined with leveraging the actual chips from 3rd paties who already had the licensing rights including resale and remanufacture.
Apple also challenged some of the patents as obvious or unpatentable ideas and simply refused to pay the hiked rates nokia insited on.I've gone through the bulk of patents Nokia is claiming they hold, and they are weak in most cases, or related to components apple did not themselves design or make and are licensed properly by others who sold apple those chips.
On the counter, Apple has strong and clear patents they're throwing back at nokia, at least one of which has already been upheld in court.
Apple's patents also hold a much higer per-device license fee than even the GMS liucenses nokia is throwing around.
What i can find NO links to is what Nokia has lobbed back...  Between Apple, Intel, NeXT, BSD, and Open Source code bases, I can't imagine much in their system that's both patentable, and not already owned by one of those...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588436</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262089380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>More likely Nokia is pissed that Apple won't license multi-touch to them, and Nokia is trying to force Apple into a cross-licensing deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely Nokia is pissed that Apple wo n't license multi-touch to them , and Nokia is trying to force Apple into a cross-licensing deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely Nokia is pissed that Apple won't license multi-touch to them, and Nokia is trying to force Apple into a cross-licensing deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588596</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Snarkalicious</author>
	<datestamp>1262090220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hope yer not hangin out waiting for that to be the price sans 2yr carrier contract.  Apple has no call or need to drive prices that low.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope yer not hangin out waiting for that to be the price sans 2yr carrier contract .
Apple has no call or need to drive prices that low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope yer not hangin out waiting for that to be the price sans 2yr carrier contract.
Apple has no call or need to drive prices that low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588572</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262090100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition.  Nokia's grasping at straws here, because they know that <b>when the iPhone gets down around the $50 price point</b>, they're toast.</p><p>-jcr</p></div><p>Wow.  From a guy with an @mac.com address, I'd have expected you to know Apple's pricing strategy by this point.  When was the last time you saw Apple (not a reseller) sell ANYTHING at around 1/4 to 1/6 its original price?  No, "last year's model" doesn't count, as Apple quickly discontinues it (hence the "not a reseller" part above).  Next year, a new $200-$300-with-contract iPhone will show up, the 3Gs will mysteriously vanish from Apple stores, the first-gen and 3G iPhones will be little more than jokes, and the magic $50 point will just fade farther and farther away...</p><p>And yes, this DOES mean eBay doesn't count, either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition .
Nokia 's grasping at straws here , because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $ 50 price point , they 're toast.-jcrWow .
From a guy with an @ mac.com address , I 'd have expected you to know Apple 's pricing strategy by this point .
When was the last time you saw Apple ( not a reseller ) sell ANYTHING at around 1/4 to 1/6 its original price ?
No , " last year 's model " does n't count , as Apple quickly discontinues it ( hence the " not a reseller " part above ) .
Next year , a new $ 200- $ 300-with-contract iPhone will show up , the 3Gs will mysteriously vanish from Apple stores , the first-gen and 3G iPhones will be little more than jokes , and the magic $ 50 point will just fade farther and farther away...And yes , this DOES mean eBay does n't count , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition.
Nokia's grasping at straws here, because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $50 price point, they're toast.-jcrWow.
From a guy with an @mac.com address, I'd have expected you to know Apple's pricing strategy by this point.
When was the last time you saw Apple (not a reseller) sell ANYTHING at around 1/4 to 1/6 its original price?
No, "last year's model" doesn't count, as Apple quickly discontinues it (hence the "not a reseller" part above).
Next year, a new $200-$300-with-contract iPhone will show up, the 3Gs will mysteriously vanish from Apple stores, the first-gen and 3G iPhones will be little more than jokes, and the magic $50 point will just fade farther and farther away...And yes, this DOES mean eBay doesn't count, either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588502</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262089740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the fact still remains. Apple stole their position in the mobile space by stealing many years of research in the GSM area.</p><p>If the court decides in favour of Nokia here (and I could bet some money on that. It is Apple that is waving with the silly patents here, like "touch your screen with two fingers at the same time") then Apple will have to pay big time. In the same magnitude as all their iPhone earnings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the fact still remains .
Apple stole their position in the mobile space by stealing many years of research in the GSM area.If the court decides in favour of Nokia here ( and I could bet some money on that .
It is Apple that is waving with the silly patents here , like " touch your screen with two fingers at the same time " ) then Apple will have to pay big time .
In the same magnitude as all their iPhone earnings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the fact still remains.
Apple stole their position in the mobile space by stealing many years of research in the GSM area.If the court decides in favour of Nokia here (and I could bet some money on that.
It is Apple that is waving with the silly patents here, like "touch your screen with two fingers at the same time") then Apple will have to pay big time.
In the same magnitude as all their iPhone earnings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589098</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262093220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>S40 platform (the non-Symbian, non-"smarthpone" one) has Webkit browser for some time now. And multitasking comparable to that in the iPhone (generally one up, though that doesn't include music player or phone features)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>S40 platform ( the non-Symbian , non- " smarthpone " one ) has Webkit browser for some time now .
And multitasking comparable to that in the iPhone ( generally one up , though that does n't include music player or phone features )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>S40 platform (the non-Symbian, non-"smarthpone" one) has Webkit browser for some time now.
And multitasking comparable to that in the iPhone (generally one up, though that doesn't include music player or phone features)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30609432</id>
	<title>Funny</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1262251920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually, the dominant mood in these forums is anti-patent. Not so when it's Apple, another favorite bugaboo, getting sued.</p><p>They're countersuing, alleging Nokia infringes.</p><p>And of course, there's the old saw that when you're competing well, you sell your product; when things are not going so well, and you're losing marketshare, you sue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually , the dominant mood in these forums is anti-patent .
Not so when it 's Apple , another favorite bugaboo , getting sued.They 're countersuing , alleging Nokia infringes.And of course , there 's the old saw that when you 're competing well , you sell your product ; when things are not going so well , and you 're losing marketshare , you sue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually, the dominant mood in these forums is anti-patent.
Not so when it's Apple, another favorite bugaboo, getting sued.They're countersuing, alleging Nokia infringes.And of course, there's the old saw that when you're competing well, you sell your product; when things are not going so well, and you're losing marketshare, you sue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588866</id>
	<title>When you can't compete...</title>
	<author>divisionbyzero</author>
	<datestamp>1262091840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>litigate!  It's a fairly obvious sign of weakness...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>litigate !
It 's a fairly obvious sign of weakness.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>litigate!
It's a fairly obvious sign of weakness...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590876</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong! Nokia wanted to extort Apple.</title>
	<author>NimbleSquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1262112180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question is did Apple seek to license the patents before the iPhone was released?
<br> <br>
Given that every other manufacturer has licensed these patents (and that they are in respect to a Standard) means that Apple would have known about them when it was developing the iPhone. Did Apple approach Nokia at any stage in the process or did Apple just forge ahead, knowing of a potential infringement, hoping to deal with it at a later point in time? Given Apple's secrecy of projects in development, it wouldn't surprise me if that was one of the main reasons they didn't sort out licensing ahead of time.
<br> <br>
Did Apple know about the patents while the iPhone was in development? Did Apple approach Nokia in any way prior to the iPhone's release? Did Apple release the iPhone knowing that it was infringing on on or more of Nokia's patents? If the answer is yes, then arguements over F/RAND terms are rather moot.
<br> <br>
Apple's countersuit is a bargaining tactic - an attempt to force Nokia to settle. The most recent filing by Nokia seems to indicate that they are not willing to settle (at least not yet, and any settlement will be under their terms), and that they think they have a good chance. Time will tell, but this is shaping up to be a very interesting case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is did Apple seek to license the patents before the iPhone was released ?
Given that every other manufacturer has licensed these patents ( and that they are in respect to a Standard ) means that Apple would have known about them when it was developing the iPhone .
Did Apple approach Nokia at any stage in the process or did Apple just forge ahead , knowing of a potential infringement , hoping to deal with it at a later point in time ?
Given Apple 's secrecy of projects in development , it would n't surprise me if that was one of the main reasons they did n't sort out licensing ahead of time .
Did Apple know about the patents while the iPhone was in development ?
Did Apple approach Nokia in any way prior to the iPhone 's release ?
Did Apple release the iPhone knowing that it was infringing on on or more of Nokia 's patents ?
If the answer is yes , then arguements over F/RAND terms are rather moot .
Apple 's countersuit is a bargaining tactic - an attempt to force Nokia to settle .
The most recent filing by Nokia seems to indicate that they are not willing to settle ( at least not yet , and any settlement will be under their terms ) , and that they think they have a good chance .
Time will tell , but this is shaping up to be a very interesting case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is did Apple seek to license the patents before the iPhone was released?
Given that every other manufacturer has licensed these patents (and that they are in respect to a Standard) means that Apple would have known about them when it was developing the iPhone.
Did Apple approach Nokia at any stage in the process or did Apple just forge ahead, knowing of a potential infringement, hoping to deal with it at a later point in time?
Given Apple's secrecy of projects in development, it wouldn't surprise me if that was one of the main reasons they didn't sort out licensing ahead of time.
Did Apple know about the patents while the iPhone was in development?
Did Apple approach Nokia in any way prior to the iPhone's release?
Did Apple release the iPhone knowing that it was infringing on on or more of Nokia's patents?
If the answer is yes, then arguements over F/RAND terms are rather moot.
Apple's countersuit is a bargaining tactic - an attempt to force Nokia to settle.
The most recent filing by Nokia seems to indicate that they are not willing to settle (at least not yet, and any settlement will be under their terms), and that they think they have a good chance.
Time will tell, but this is shaping up to be a very interesting case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592504</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259850780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you know that Nokia hasn't asked other companies to do this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know that Nokia has n't asked other companies to do this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know that Nokia hasn't asked other companies to do this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587832</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262086500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your point is well made. Large companies like Apple, IBM, Microsoft, etc maintain huge patent portfolios and have extraordinarily complicated cross-licensing arrangements that would take an army of outside attorneys decades to fully decipher. It's largely a defensive measure; as you pointed out, poking at Apple with a stick is likely to result in Apple bludgeoning them with a log.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point is well made .
Large companies like Apple , IBM , Microsoft , etc maintain huge patent portfolios and have extraordinarily complicated cross-licensing arrangements that would take an army of outside attorneys decades to fully decipher .
It 's largely a defensive measure ; as you pointed out , poking at Apple with a stick is likely to result in Apple bludgeoning them with a log .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point is well made.
Large companies like Apple, IBM, Microsoft, etc maintain huge patent portfolios and have extraordinarily complicated cross-licensing arrangements that would take an army of outside attorneys decades to fully decipher.
It's largely a defensive measure; as you pointed out, poking at Apple with a stick is likely to result in Apple bludgeoning them with a log.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589152</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>BasilBrush</author>
	<datestamp>1262093760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Apple likes to group the separate handsets together into "the iPhone" and suggest sales of 40mill whilst separating it's opponents iterations (for example the N95, N96 iterations) to show itself as more of a success story than the figures really put it at.</p></div></blockquote><p>[citation needed]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple likes to group the separate handsets together into " the iPhone " and suggest sales of 40mill whilst separating it 's opponents iterations ( for example the N95 , N96 iterations ) to show itself as more of a success story than the figures really put it at .
[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple likes to group the separate handsets together into "the iPhone" and suggest sales of 40mill whilst separating it's opponents iterations (for example the N95, N96 iterations) to show itself as more of a success story than the figures really put it at.
[citation needed]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590192</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1262103720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition. Nokia's grasping at straws here, because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $50 price point, they're toast.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Yeah, I'm sure Nokia is quacking in its boots, unless you meant that the value of the US dollar is going to increase 16 fold, as that's the only way you'll get an iphone for US$50 carrier free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition .
Nokia 's grasping at straws here , because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $ 50 price point , they 're toast .
Yeah , I 'm sure Nokia is quacking in its boots , unless you meant that the value of the US dollar is going to increase 16 fold , as that 's the only way you 'll get an iphone for US $ 50 carrier free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition.
Nokia's grasping at straws here, because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $50 price point, they're toast.
Yeah, I'm sure Nokia is quacking in its boots, unless you meant that the value of the US dollar is going to increase 16 fold, as that's the only way you'll get an iphone for US$50 carrier free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589166</id>
	<title>What this is really about</title>
	<author>rabtech</author>
	<datestamp>1262093880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have hinted at, this is really about Nokia refusing to license their GSM patents under the RAND terms that are required of GSM Association members, the same license terms that all the other handset manufacturers got from Nokia.</p><p>Instead, Nokia wanted more than the normal fee PLUS free access to Apple's patent portfolio. When Apple refused, they tripled their asking rate and again insisted that they get free cross-licensing of Apple's patents.</p><p>Nokia is violating both the spirit and the letter of their GSM agreements. If you want to talk about companies (Microsoft) using patents against others even while using the open specifications promise and other promises not to sue, here is a prime example of a company getting their standard adopted, licensing the tech to the other industry players, then attempting to use their patents to force an upstart competitor out of the market (or at least rob them financially).</p><p>I'll also note that they are using what seems to be a standard tactic: try to get import of the products stopped, rather than fighting the court case. Even if they lose the court case, if they can stop Apple from importing products for a few years it will be a severe strain. The best part is they can pay off some bureaucrats instead of getting a judge to issue an injunction.</p><p>Claiming that other Apple products violate their patents is just more posturing to try and force a settlement on terms that are very unfavorable to Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have hinted at , this is really about Nokia refusing to license their GSM patents under the RAND terms that are required of GSM Association members , the same license terms that all the other handset manufacturers got from Nokia.Instead , Nokia wanted more than the normal fee PLUS free access to Apple 's patent portfolio .
When Apple refused , they tripled their asking rate and again insisted that they get free cross-licensing of Apple 's patents.Nokia is violating both the spirit and the letter of their GSM agreements .
If you want to talk about companies ( Microsoft ) using patents against others even while using the open specifications promise and other promises not to sue , here is a prime example of a company getting their standard adopted , licensing the tech to the other industry players , then attempting to use their patents to force an upstart competitor out of the market ( or at least rob them financially ) .I 'll also note that they are using what seems to be a standard tactic : try to get import of the products stopped , rather than fighting the court case .
Even if they lose the court case , if they can stop Apple from importing products for a few years it will be a severe strain .
The best part is they can pay off some bureaucrats instead of getting a judge to issue an injunction.Claiming that other Apple products violate their patents is just more posturing to try and force a settlement on terms that are very unfavorable to Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have hinted at, this is really about Nokia refusing to license their GSM patents under the RAND terms that are required of GSM Association members, the same license terms that all the other handset manufacturers got from Nokia.Instead, Nokia wanted more than the normal fee PLUS free access to Apple's patent portfolio.
When Apple refused, they tripled their asking rate and again insisted that they get free cross-licensing of Apple's patents.Nokia is violating both the spirit and the letter of their GSM agreements.
If you want to talk about companies (Microsoft) using patents against others even while using the open specifications promise and other promises not to sue, here is a prime example of a company getting their standard adopted, licensing the tech to the other industry players, then attempting to use their patents to force an upstart competitor out of the market (or at least rob them financially).I'll also note that they are using what seems to be a standard tactic: try to get import of the products stopped, rather than fighting the court case.
Even if they lose the court case, if they can stop Apple from importing products for a few years it will be a severe strain.
The best part is they can pay off some bureaucrats instead of getting a judge to issue an injunction.Claiming that other Apple products violate their patents is just more posturing to try and force a settlement on terms that are very unfavorable to Apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588744</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262091000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition.  Nokia's grasping at straws here, because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $50 price point, they're toast.</p><p>-jcr</p></div><p>Absurd.  Apple has always catered to the higher end market, and has never brought any product down to the low end.  When phones similar to the iPhone are selling for $50, then Apple will already be on the next next generation at about the same price point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition .
Nokia 's grasping at straws here , because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $ 50 price point , they 're toast.-jcrAbsurd .
Apple has always catered to the higher end market , and has never brought any product down to the low end .
When phones similar to the iPhone are selling for $ 50 , then Apple will already be on the next next generation at about the same price point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition.
Nokia's grasping at straws here, because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $50 price point, they're toast.-jcrAbsurd.
Apple has always catered to the higher end market, and has never brought any product down to the low end.
When phones similar to the iPhone are selling for $50, then Apple will already be on the next next generation at about the same price point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588434</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262089380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's bound to happen, just after the macbook drops below 800$...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's bound to happen , just after the macbook drops below 800 $ .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's bound to happen, just after the macbook drops below 800$...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589760</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262099400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://forum2.mobile-review.com/showthread.php?t=85840" title="mobile-review.com" rel="nofollow">http://forum2.mobile-review.com/showthread.php?t=85840</a> [mobile-review.com] 2.5\% share of the world market in mobile phones in Q3 2009.<p>BTW, are you fucking kidding me? According to your source, Apple has 0.11\% world-wide, but doesn't reach that share in any continent - how exactly does that add up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //forum2.mobile-review.com/showthread.php ? t = 85840 [ mobile-review.com ] 2.5 \ % share of the world market in mobile phones in Q3 2009.BTW , are you fucking kidding me ?
According to your source , Apple has 0.11 \ % world-wide , but does n't reach that share in any continent - how exactly does that add up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://forum2.mobile-review.com/showthread.php?t=85840 [mobile-review.com] 2.5\% share of the world market in mobile phones in Q3 2009.BTW, are you fucking kidding me?
According to your source, Apple has 0.11\% world-wide, but doesn't reach that share in any continent - how exactly does that add up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588720</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>rsmith-mac</author>
	<datestamp>1262090880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bear in mind <i>why</i> Apple hasn't licensed these patents yet. If their side of the story (and their counter-suits) are to be believed, then it's because Nokia won't license them under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable\_and\_Non\_Discriminatory\_Licensing" title="wikipedia.org">Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory</a> [wikipedia.org] (RAND) terms.</p><p>All indications that Apple wants to pay the same licensing fee that Sony, Motorola, etc have paid. Nokia on the other hand doesn't want the fee - they want to cross-license Apple's patents - which are far more valuable than any fee that other handset manufacturers have paid. Nokia is violating RAND by refusing to license the necessary patents to Apple as they have the other handset manufacturers. Under RAND terms, Apple is under no obligation to cross-license to get access to Nokia's patents, although they still have the option of doing so if they'd like (and here's a hint, they don't want to).</p><p>For that reason, even if Nokia has a stronger patent portfolio, it's anyone's guess how this will finally go. The larger GSM Association requires that all of this stuff be offered under RAND terms, so there may be consequences for Nokia if they keep this up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bear in mind why Apple has n't licensed these patents yet .
If their side of the story ( and their counter-suits ) are to be believed , then it 's because Nokia wo n't license them under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory [ wikipedia.org ] ( RAND ) terms.All indications that Apple wants to pay the same licensing fee that Sony , Motorola , etc have paid .
Nokia on the other hand does n't want the fee - they want to cross-license Apple 's patents - which are far more valuable than any fee that other handset manufacturers have paid .
Nokia is violating RAND by refusing to license the necessary patents to Apple as they have the other handset manufacturers .
Under RAND terms , Apple is under no obligation to cross-license to get access to Nokia 's patents , although they still have the option of doing so if they 'd like ( and here 's a hint , they do n't want to ) .For that reason , even if Nokia has a stronger patent portfolio , it 's anyone 's guess how this will finally go .
The larger GSM Association requires that all of this stuff be offered under RAND terms , so there may be consequences for Nokia if they keep this up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bear in mind why Apple hasn't licensed these patents yet.
If their side of the story (and their counter-suits) are to be believed, then it's because Nokia won't license them under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory [wikipedia.org] (RAND) terms.All indications that Apple wants to pay the same licensing fee that Sony, Motorola, etc have paid.
Nokia on the other hand doesn't want the fee - they want to cross-license Apple's patents - which are far more valuable than any fee that other handset manufacturers have paid.
Nokia is violating RAND by refusing to license the necessary patents to Apple as they have the other handset manufacturers.
Under RAND terms, Apple is under no obligation to cross-license to get access to Nokia's patents, although they still have the option of doing so if they'd like (and here's a hint, they don't want to).For that reason, even if Nokia has a stronger patent portfolio, it's anyone's guess how this will finally go.
The larger GSM Association requires that all of this stuff be offered under RAND terms, so there may be consequences for Nokia if they keep this up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588880</id>
	<title>Re:Nokia and the hurt bag...</title>
	<author>leathered</author>
	<datestamp>1262091960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh Hello? Nokia spend orders of magnitude more money on R&amp;D than the other handset manufacturers. All the other handset makers are <i>happy</i> to pay licensing fees/royalties to them. For some reason Apple thinks it doesn't have to pay those royalties and can incorporate Nokia IP into its products, sorry I meant product, at will.</p><p>I despise patent trolls like everyone else here but this looks like a reasonable attempt by Nokia to defend its IP portfolio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh Hello ?
Nokia spend orders of magnitude more money on R&amp;D than the other handset manufacturers .
All the other handset makers are happy to pay licensing fees/royalties to them .
For some reason Apple thinks it does n't have to pay those royalties and can incorporate Nokia IP into its products , sorry I meant product , at will.I despise patent trolls like everyone else here but this looks like a reasonable attempt by Nokia to defend its IP portfolio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh Hello?
Nokia spend orders of magnitude more money on R&amp;D than the other handset manufacturers.
All the other handset makers are happy to pay licensing fees/royalties to them.
For some reason Apple thinks it doesn't have to pay those royalties and can incorporate Nokia IP into its products, sorry I meant product, at will.I despise patent trolls like everyone else here but this looks like a reasonable attempt by Nokia to defend its IP portfolio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589646</id>
	<title>Re:What this is really about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262098320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is not a GSM Association member.  They had nothing to do with developing GSM, and so don't have claim to the favorable RAND terms available to GSM Association members.</p><p>If Nokia wanted more in exchange for the use of their patents than other GSM patent holders do, then that is their right.  If Apple doesn't want to pay Nokia's terms, they need to find a way around the patents.  If that's what they did, then Apple will win.  If they didn't, well, you don't get to just say "Your patent isn't important" and ignore it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Claiming that other Apple products violate their patents is just more posturing to try and force a settlement on terms that are very unfavorable to Apple.</p></div><p>That's assuming Apple products don't violate Nokia patents.  If they do violate the patents, then Nokia's position is completely legitimate, and Apple refused to license Nokia's patents and went ahead and infringed them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is not a GSM Association member .
They had nothing to do with developing GSM , and so do n't have claim to the favorable RAND terms available to GSM Association members.If Nokia wanted more in exchange for the use of their patents than other GSM patent holders do , then that is their right .
If Apple does n't want to pay Nokia 's terms , they need to find a way around the patents .
If that 's what they did , then Apple will win .
If they did n't , well , you do n't get to just say " Your patent is n't important " and ignore it.Claiming that other Apple products violate their patents is just more posturing to try and force a settlement on terms that are very unfavorable to Apple.That 's assuming Apple products do n't violate Nokia patents .
If they do violate the patents , then Nokia 's position is completely legitimate , and Apple refused to license Nokia 's patents and went ahead and infringed them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is not a GSM Association member.
They had nothing to do with developing GSM, and so don't have claim to the favorable RAND terms available to GSM Association members.If Nokia wanted more in exchange for the use of their patents than other GSM patent holders do, then that is their right.
If Apple doesn't want to pay Nokia's terms, they need to find a way around the patents.
If that's what they did, then Apple will win.
If they didn't, well, you don't get to just say "Your patent isn't important" and ignore it.Claiming that other Apple products violate their patents is just more posturing to try and force a settlement on terms that are very unfavorable to Apple.That's assuming Apple products don't violate Nokia patents.
If they do violate the patents, then Nokia's position is completely legitimate, and Apple refused to license Nokia's patents and went ahead and infringed them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592378</id>
	<title>But but but....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259849340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple is a benevolent company and would never do anything like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is a benevolent company and would never do anything like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is a benevolent company and would never do anything like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588654</id>
	<title>Nokia and the hurt bag...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1262090520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nokia has finally opened the hurt bag on itself.  They are one of the biggest patent trolls out there and have been bullying all the other phone makers for years and no one had the patent portfolio to stand up to them before.  They just might get their products banned for this one.  Their usual strategy is to discredit the other manufacturer rather than out compete them and if that fails then the patent hammer gets them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has finally opened the hurt bag on itself .
They are one of the biggest patent trolls out there and have been bullying all the other phone makers for years and no one had the patent portfolio to stand up to them before .
They just might get their products banned for this one .
Their usual strategy is to discredit the other manufacturer rather than out compete them and if that fails then the patent hammer gets them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has finally opened the hurt bag on itself.
They are one of the biggest patent trolls out there and have been bullying all the other phone makers for years and no one had the patent portfolio to stand up to them before.
They just might get their products banned for this one.
Their usual strategy is to discredit the other manufacturer rather than out compete them and if that fails then the patent hammer gets them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</id>
	<title>Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262088480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition.  Nokia's grasping at straws here, because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $50 price point, they're toast.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition .
Nokia 's grasping at straws here , because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $ 50 price point , they 're toast.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Litigation is a poor substitute for competition.
Nokia's grasping at straws here, because they know that when the iPhone gets down around the $50 price point, they're toast.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589170</id>
	<title>New Apple Product</title>
	<author>besalope</author>
	<datestamp>1262093940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So will the next Apple product be called the "<b>iSteal.IP</b>?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>So will the next Apple product be called the " iSteal.IP ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So will the next Apple product be called the "iSteal.IP?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588986</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262092440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Nokia owned patents for annoying advertisements and cornering the smug douchebag market?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Nokia owned patents for annoying advertisements and cornering the smug douchebag market ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Nokia owned patents for annoying advertisements and cornering the smug douchebag market?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592872</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1259853420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Infineon almost certainly does have a license, but that license won't cover Apple, only infineon's ability to produce the chips and sell them. The license has to be owned by whoever is making use of the patented technology, not just the company that initially makes use of it. It's not like transferable software licenses in this respect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Infineon almost certainly does have a license , but that license wo n't cover Apple , only infineon 's ability to produce the chips and sell them .
The license has to be owned by whoever is making use of the patented technology , not just the company that initially makes use of it .
It 's not like transferable software licenses in this respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Infineon almost certainly does have a license, but that license won't cover Apple, only infineon's ability to produce the chips and sell them.
The license has to be owned by whoever is making use of the patented technology, not just the company that initially makes use of it.
It's not like transferable software licenses in this respect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591608</id>
	<title>Re:What this is really about</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1259835720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As others have hinted at, this is really about Nokia refusing to license their GSM patents under the RAND terms that are required of GSM Association members, the same license terms that all the other handset manufacturers got from Nokia.</i></p><p>Whether Nokia follow their agreement with GSMA or not is a matter between Nokia and GSMA.  Apple have no grounds to complain, because they aren't a party to that agreement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have hinted at , this is really about Nokia refusing to license their GSM patents under the RAND terms that are required of GSM Association members , the same license terms that all the other handset manufacturers got from Nokia.Whether Nokia follow their agreement with GSMA or not is a matter between Nokia and GSMA .
Apple have no grounds to complain , because they are n't a party to that agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have hinted at, this is really about Nokia refusing to license their GSM patents under the RAND terms that are required of GSM Association members, the same license terms that all the other handset manufacturers got from Nokia.Whether Nokia follow their agreement with GSMA or not is a matter between Nokia and GSMA.
Apple have no grounds to complain, because they aren't a party to that agreement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752</id>
	<title>This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262086260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple has been patenting things for a long time.  If they look really hard, I suspect they will find hundreds of patents that Nokia is using without compensation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has been patenting things for a long time .
If they look really hard , I suspect they will find hundreds of patents that Nokia is using without compensation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has been patenting things for a long time.
If they look really hard, I suspect they will find hundreds of patents that Nokia is using without compensation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588148</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262087880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's the whole point! Apple weren't playing the game and cross-licencing with Nokia.</p><p>This is the next step in negotiation through litigation, where they realise, well gosh, all these other hundreds of patents need licencing too. And Apple retaliates with the same, or already has done.</p><p>And at some point in the future, after the game of one-upmanship, the two parties will settle, and they will settle with cross-licencing technologies. But not until one of them blinks first.</p><p>And who wins? Overpaid American lawyers. What a deserving and hard-up bunch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's the whole point !
Apple were n't playing the game and cross-licencing with Nokia.This is the next step in negotiation through litigation , where they realise , well gosh , all these other hundreds of patents need licencing too .
And Apple retaliates with the same , or already has done.And at some point in the future , after the game of one-upmanship , the two parties will settle , and they will settle with cross-licencing technologies .
But not until one of them blinks first.And who wins ?
Overpaid American lawyers .
What a deserving and hard-up bunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's the whole point!
Apple weren't playing the game and cross-licencing with Nokia.This is the next step in negotiation through litigation, where they realise, well gosh, all these other hundreds of patents need licencing too.
And Apple retaliates with the same, or already has done.And at some point in the future, after the game of one-upmanship, the two parties will settle, and they will settle with cross-licencing technologies.
But not until one of them blinks first.And who wins?
Overpaid American lawyers.
What a deserving and hard-up bunch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588170</id>
	<title>Why do Liberals always speak in the passive voice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262088060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes you all sound like indecisive pussies.  Just an observation.  I've noticed that Obama is particularly adept at using the passive voice, especially when things go wrong and he's left with egg on his face (which seems to be quite often).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes you all sound like indecisive pussies .
Just an observation .
I 've noticed that Obama is particularly adept at using the passive voice , especially when things go wrong and he 's left with egg on his face ( which seems to be quite often ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes you all sound like indecisive pussies.
Just an observation.
I've noticed that Obama is particularly adept at using the passive voice, especially when things go wrong and he's left with egg on his face (which seems to be quite often).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30601332</id>
	<title>3 times is automatic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259846520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Knowingly infringing a patent generally attracts 3 times the penalty automatically (over unknowingly infringing). If Apple infringed, they most certainly did it knowingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowingly infringing a patent generally attracts 3 times the penalty automatically ( over unknowingly infringing ) .
If Apple infringed , they most certainly did it knowingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowingly infringing a patent generally attracts 3 times the penalty automatically (over unknowingly infringing).
If Apple infringed, they most certainly did it knowingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588568</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1262090040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to break it to you, but Nokia's global market share is several times greater than that of their nearest competitor, it is up about 25\% (39\% share vs 52\% this year) from last year, and it's about 477 times greater than Apple's share (0.11\%) of the cell phone market.</p><p>Even RIM has about 25 times greater market share than Apple.  Frankly, as popular as the iPhone is (4\% of the smartphone market), it is peanuts when put in perspective.</p><p><a href="http://stats.getjar.com/statistics/" title="getjar.com">http://stats.getjar.com/statistics/</a> [getjar.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to break it to you , but Nokia 's global market share is several times greater than that of their nearest competitor , it is up about 25 \ % ( 39 \ % share vs 52 \ % this year ) from last year , and it 's about 477 times greater than Apple 's share ( 0.11 \ % ) of the cell phone market.Even RIM has about 25 times greater market share than Apple .
Frankly , as popular as the iPhone is ( 4 \ % of the smartphone market ) , it is peanuts when put in perspective.http : //stats.getjar.com/statistics/ [ getjar.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to break it to you, but Nokia's global market share is several times greater than that of their nearest competitor, it is up about 25\% (39\% share vs 52\% this year) from last year, and it's about 477 times greater than Apple's share (0.11\%) of the cell phone market.Even RIM has about 25 times greater market share than Apple.
Frankly, as popular as the iPhone is (4\% of the smartphone market), it is peanuts when put in perspective.http://stats.getjar.com/statistics/ [getjar.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588490</id>
	<title>Lawsuits</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1262089680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kind of a neat way to maintain high public exposure, but can it be cheaper than regular advertising? Aside from the freebie here on the front page? Only their accountants know for sure.. I gotta admit.. the drama angle plays pretty good.. cliffhangers and everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of a neat way to maintain high public exposure , but can it be cheaper than regular advertising ?
Aside from the freebie here on the front page ?
Only their accountants know for sure.. I got ta admit.. the drama angle plays pretty good.. cliffhangers and everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of a neat way to maintain high public exposure, but can it be cheaper than regular advertising?
Aside from the freebie here on the front page?
Only their accountants know for sure.. I gotta admit.. the drama angle plays pretty good.. cliffhangers and everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587982</id>
	<title>Re:Consistency or hypocrisy?</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1262087100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or are they going to make excuses about how this is okay because it's going after Apple</p></div><p>It may not be ok, but it sure is ironic. So Ha Ha Ha Ha.</p><p>However what I just said is irrelevant. At the end of the day, these two companies will undoubtedly just do a broad ranging cross-licensing agreement like most big tech players. That will further serve to stifle any potential future competition from people who are not in the cabal of giants protected by their mutual patent moats.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or are they going to make excuses about how this is okay because it 's going after AppleIt may not be ok , but it sure is ironic .
So Ha Ha Ha Ha.However what I just said is irrelevant .
At the end of the day , these two companies will undoubtedly just do a broad ranging cross-licensing agreement like most big tech players .
That will further serve to stifle any potential future competition from people who are not in the cabal of giants protected by their mutual patent moats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or are they going to make excuses about how this is okay because it's going after AppleIt may not be ok, but it sure is ironic.
So Ha Ha Ha Ha.However what I just said is irrelevant.
At the end of the day, these two companies will undoubtedly just do a broad ranging cross-licensing agreement like most big tech players.
That will further serve to stifle any potential future competition from people who are not in the cabal of giants protected by their mutual patent moats.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592488</id>
	<title>Cupertino, Close Your Copiers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259850660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SALES BAN WTF!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SALES BAN WTF !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SALES BAN WTF!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588762</id>
	<title>Re:Consistency or hypocrisy?</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1262091060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't happen, and here is why: It is not in their best interests to risk losing the power that having patent warchests give them against new players attempting to enter the market. So instead what will happen is that after much saber rattling the lawyers from Nokia and Apple will get together and sign a cross licensing agreement covering any and all of the above patents, thus allowing both to keep their patent warchests while Nokia will get a nice check.</p><p>

 Just look at deals between AMD and Intel, ATI and Nvidia, for examples. While we can be sure that with patent warchests as large as the mega companies have that they are no doubt infringing on each others patents in probably hundreds of cases, by signing large CYA cross licensing agreements with each other they can continue business as usual and help to keep out new players. Just as I'm sure that along with that fat 1.25 billion dollar check Intel cut AMD to drop the anti-trust lawsuit there was wording in the settlement that lets AMD not worry about infringing on plenty of Intel patents. It is just the way the big corps roll sadly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't happen , and here is why : It is not in their best interests to risk losing the power that having patent warchests give them against new players attempting to enter the market .
So instead what will happen is that after much saber rattling the lawyers from Nokia and Apple will get together and sign a cross licensing agreement covering any and all of the above patents , thus allowing both to keep their patent warchests while Nokia will get a nice check .
Just look at deals between AMD and Intel , ATI and Nvidia , for examples .
While we can be sure that with patent warchests as large as the mega companies have that they are no doubt infringing on each others patents in probably hundreds of cases , by signing large CYA cross licensing agreements with each other they can continue business as usual and help to keep out new players .
Just as I 'm sure that along with that fat 1.25 billion dollar check Intel cut AMD to drop the anti-trust lawsuit there was wording in the settlement that lets AMD not worry about infringing on plenty of Intel patents .
It is just the way the big corps roll sadly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't happen, and here is why: It is not in their best interests to risk losing the power that having patent warchests give them against new players attempting to enter the market.
So instead what will happen is that after much saber rattling the lawyers from Nokia and Apple will get together and sign a cross licensing agreement covering any and all of the above patents, thus allowing both to keep their patent warchests while Nokia will get a nice check.
Just look at deals between AMD and Intel, ATI and Nvidia, for examples.
While we can be sure that with patent warchests as large as the mega companies have that they are no doubt infringing on each others patents in probably hundreds of cases, by signing large CYA cross licensing agreements with each other they can continue business as usual and help to keep out new players.
Just as I'm sure that along with that fat 1.25 billion dollar check Intel cut AMD to drop the anti-trust lawsuit there was wording in the settlement that lets AMD not worry about infringing on plenty of Intel patents.
It is just the way the big corps roll sadly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587860</id>
	<title>Re:This is not going to end well</title>
	<author>Penguuu</author>
	<datestamp>1262086620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have actually already countersuited Nokia for earlier patent disputes: <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357039,00.asp" title="pcmag.com">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357039,00.asp</a> [pcmag.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have actually already countersuited Nokia for earlier patent disputes : http : //www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357039,00.asp [ pcmag.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have actually already countersuited Nokia for earlier patent disputes: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357039,00.asp [pcmag.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587816</id>
	<title>Re:Consistency or hypocrisy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262086440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are only for Nokia suing Apple because it brings light to why the patent system is broken. In other words things only change when the heavy hitters like Microsoft get hit with enough patent lawsuits, that they change their mind on patents and lobby to have them overturned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are only for Nokia suing Apple because it brings light to why the patent system is broken .
In other words things only change when the heavy hitters like Microsoft get hit with enough patent lawsuits , that they change their mind on patents and lobby to have them overturned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are only for Nokia suing Apple because it brings light to why the patent system is broken.
In other words things only change when the heavy hitters like Microsoft get hit with enough patent lawsuits, that they change their mind on patents and lobby to have them overturned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588998</id>
	<title>Re:Sell your Nokia shares.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1262092560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hate to break it to you, but Nokia's global market share is several times greater than that of their nearest competitor, it is up about 25\% (39\% share vs 52\% this year) from last year, and it's about 477 times greater than Apple's share (0.11\%) of the cell phone market.</p></div><p>And yet, Nokia's profits are way down. You don't go in to business for marketshare, you go into business to make a profit. Guess who does a better job on that front?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to break it to you , but Nokia 's global market share is several times greater than that of their nearest competitor , it is up about 25 \ % ( 39 \ % share vs 52 \ % this year ) from last year , and it 's about 477 times greater than Apple 's share ( 0.11 \ % ) of the cell phone market.And yet , Nokia 's profits are way down .
You do n't go in to business for marketshare , you go into business to make a profit .
Guess who does a better job on that front ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to break it to you, but Nokia's global market share is several times greater than that of their nearest competitor, it is up about 25\% (39\% share vs 52\% this year) from last year, and it's about 477 times greater than Apple's share (0.11\%) of the cell phone market.And yet, Nokia's profits are way down.
You don't go in to business for marketshare, you go into business to make a profit.
Guess who does a better job on that front?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589136</id>
	<title>GO NOKIA!</title>
	<author>rec9140</author>
	<datestamp>1262093580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I despise IP, trademark, copyright, et al... in this case.......</p><p>YOU GO NOKIA!</p><p>Finally some one is going to put an end to the crapple cult!</p><p>YOU GO NOKIA! ! ! ! ! !</p><p>Hey Xerox, can you PLEASE SUE ms and crapple over their GUI's!   We know the PARC is the TRUE ORIGINATOR of the mouse and windowed GUI!.</p><p>GO NOKIA GO! !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I despise IP , trademark , copyright , et al... in this case.......YOU GO NOKIA ! Finally some one is going to put an end to the crapple cult ! YOU GO NOKIA !
! !
! !
! Hey Xerox , can you PLEASE SUE ms and crapple over their GUI 's !
We know the PARC is the TRUE ORIGINATOR of the mouse and windowed GUI ! .GO NOKIA GO !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I despise IP, trademark, copyright, et al... in this case.......YOU GO NOKIA!Finally some one is going to put an end to the crapple cult!YOU GO NOKIA!
! !
! !
!Hey Xerox, can you PLEASE SUE ms and crapple over their GUI's!
We know the PARC is the TRUE ORIGINATOR of the mouse and windowed GUI!.GO NOKIA GO!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_2143218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_2143218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_2143218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589098
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_2143218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_2143218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_2143218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589666
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30591872
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588894
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30590876
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588782
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30592504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588720
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589110
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589236
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589190
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30587832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30589598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_2143218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_2143218.30588880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
