<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_17_069258</id>
	<title>Apple Seeks To Ban Nokia Imports To US</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263751800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Cnet reports that the ongoing patent battle between Apple and Nokia has escalated, with <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579\_3-10436415-37.html">Apple moving to block imports of Nokia cell phones to the US</a>  by filing a complaint with the International Trade Commission, an independent federal agency that examines issues including unfair trade practices involving patent, trademark, and copyright infringement. In December, <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/29/2143218/Nokia-Claims-Patent-Violations-in-Most-Apple-Products?from=rss">Nokia filed its own complaint with the USITC alleging that Apple infringes seven Nokia patents</a> 'in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players, and computers' and sought to ban imports of Apple's iPhone, iPod, and MacBook products. Responding to Apple's latest move, Nokia spokesman Mark Durrant told Bloomberg that 'Nokia will study the complaint when it is received and continue to defend itself vigorously. However this does not alter the fact that Apple has failed to agree appropriate terms for using Nokia technology and has been seeking a free ride on Nokia's innovation since it shipped the first iPhone in 2007.' An ITC investigation is a lengthy process, but <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/187054/apple\_nokia\_battle\_in\_court.html">it's possible that Apple and Nokia might reach some sort of settlement</a> as suits continue to escalate between the two companies."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Cnet reports that the ongoing patent battle between Apple and Nokia has escalated , with Apple moving to block imports of Nokia cell phones to the US by filing a complaint with the International Trade Commission , an independent federal agency that examines issues including unfair trade practices involving patent , trademark , and copyright infringement .
In December , Nokia filed its own complaint with the USITC alleging that Apple infringes seven Nokia patents 'in virtually all of its mobile phones , portable music players , and computers ' and sought to ban imports of Apple 's iPhone , iPod , and MacBook products .
Responding to Apple 's latest move , Nokia spokesman Mark Durrant told Bloomberg that 'Nokia will study the complaint when it is received and continue to defend itself vigorously .
However this does not alter the fact that Apple has failed to agree appropriate terms for using Nokia technology and has been seeking a free ride on Nokia 's innovation since it shipped the first iPhone in 2007 .
' An ITC investigation is a lengthy process , but it 's possible that Apple and Nokia might reach some sort of settlement as suits continue to escalate between the two companies .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Cnet reports that the ongoing patent battle between Apple and Nokia has escalated, with Apple moving to block imports of Nokia cell phones to the US  by filing a complaint with the International Trade Commission, an independent federal agency that examines issues including unfair trade practices involving patent, trademark, and copyright infringement.
In December, Nokia filed its own complaint with the USITC alleging that Apple infringes seven Nokia patents 'in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players, and computers' and sought to ban imports of Apple's iPhone, iPod, and MacBook products.
Responding to Apple's latest move, Nokia spokesman Mark Durrant told Bloomberg that 'Nokia will study the complaint when it is received and continue to defend itself vigorously.
However this does not alter the fact that Apple has failed to agree appropriate terms for using Nokia technology and has been seeking a free ride on Nokia's innovation since it shipped the first iPhone in 2007.
' An ITC investigation is a lengthy process, but it's possible that Apple and Nokia might reach some sort of settlement as suits continue to escalate between the two companies.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796786</id>
	<title>are you kidding?</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1263721140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia might have more employees and sell more phones, but Apple makes more money - in fact they could buy a controlling interest in Nokia with their cash-on-hand and fire Durrant's ass on the spot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia might have more employees and sell more phones , but Apple makes more money - in fact they could buy a controlling interest in Nokia with their cash-on-hand and fire Durrant 's ass on the spot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia might have more employees and sell more phones, but Apple makes more money - in fact they could buy a controlling interest in Nokia with their cash-on-hand and fire Durrant's ass on the spot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30799134</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>KarmaMB84</author>
	<datestamp>1263750480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buy a chip from Qualcomm doesn't even protect you from Qualcomm's patents if you forget to setup royalty payments. They're certainly not going to protect you from Nokia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy a chip from Qualcomm does n't even protect you from Qualcomm 's patents if you forget to setup royalty payments .
They 're certainly not going to protect you from Nokia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy a chip from Qualcomm doesn't even protect you from Qualcomm's patents if you forget to setup royalty payments.
They're certainly not going to protect you from Nokia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796876</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>caladine</author>
	<datestamp>1263722940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The radio vendor Apple uses (Infineon) already licenses the patents in order to build their baseband chips.  However, if you read the terms of the licenses, they aren't (and I can't remember the actual term) "follow-on" licenses. Meaning anyone that uses those chips also has to license the appropriate technology in order to use them.  Apple and Nokia are playing the usual game.  Apple wants too much for the "precious" multi-touch patents, and Nokia just wants to do what <i>most</i> companies do in the industry. Set up a cross-licensing agreement and be done with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The radio vendor Apple uses ( Infineon ) already licenses the patents in order to build their baseband chips .
However , if you read the terms of the licenses , they are n't ( and I ca n't remember the actual term ) " follow-on " licenses .
Meaning anyone that uses those chips also has to license the appropriate technology in order to use them .
Apple and Nokia are playing the usual game .
Apple wants too much for the " precious " multi-touch patents , and Nokia just wants to do what most companies do in the industry .
Set up a cross-licensing agreement and be done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The radio vendor Apple uses (Infineon) already licenses the patents in order to build their baseband chips.
However, if you read the terms of the licenses, they aren't (and I can't remember the actual term) "follow-on" licenses.
Meaning anyone that uses those chips also has to license the appropriate technology in order to use them.
Apple and Nokia are playing the usual game.
Apple wants too much for the "precious" multi-touch patents, and Nokia just wants to do what most companies do in the industry.
Set up a cross-licensing agreement and be done with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797238</id>
	<title>Re:Haha.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263729720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> like Bill Gates trying to fight Klitschko in a heavyweight boxing title.</p>  </div><p>I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your cable network</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>like Bill Gates trying to fight Klitschko in a heavyweight boxing title .
I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your cable network</tokentext>
<sentencetext> like Bill Gates trying to fight Klitschko in a heavyweight boxing title.
I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your cable network
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796992</id>
	<title>Gawd Apple Sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263725100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And they just continue to suck worse every time I read about them. Unfortunately, when they get their nose bloodied from this fight, it'll be back to picking on little guys again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And they just continue to suck worse every time I read about them .
Unfortunately , when they get their nose bloodied from this fight , it 'll be back to picking on little guys again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they just continue to suck worse every time I read about them.
Unfortunately, when they get their nose bloodied from this fight, it'll be back to picking on little guys again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796478</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263671760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia wants the patents for multi touch cross licensed.  These patents are even more trivial than GSM, 3G and Wi-Fi.  Personally I am with Nokia on this one.  I respect the ability to profit from being first with multi touch.  However I cannot believe it is possible for Apple to sit on these patents without licensing them to anyone.<br>I am with Nokia on this one and I hope it forces Apple to cross license some of its more obvious patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia wants the patents for multi touch cross licensed .
These patents are even more trivial than GSM , 3G and Wi-Fi .
Personally I am with Nokia on this one .
I respect the ability to profit from being first with multi touch .
However I can not believe it is possible for Apple to sit on these patents without licensing them to anyone.I am with Nokia on this one and I hope it forces Apple to cross license some of its more obvious patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia wants the patents for multi touch cross licensed.
These patents are even more trivial than GSM, 3G and Wi-Fi.
Personally I am with Nokia on this one.
I respect the ability to profit from being first with multi touch.
However I cannot believe it is possible for Apple to sit on these patents without licensing them to anyone.I am with Nokia on this one and I hope it forces Apple to cross license some of its more obvious patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796408</id>
	<title>Re:Sue first, ask questions later</title>
	<author>the\_humeister</author>
	<datestamp>1263670500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't someone please think of the lawyers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't someone please think of the lawyers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't someone please think of the lawyers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798212</id>
	<title>Re:Arrogant Apple Strikes Again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263742980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm hoping that there is no settlement. I was thinking Nokia was trying to achieve some cross-licensing agreement to use the multi-touch technology, and Apple seeing they can use that to keep everyone else "one step back", refused.<br> <br>
I'm a bit worried Nokia settles down to obtain licensing for the multi-touch (which Apple probably wants to sell for much more than it should), and I think Nokia deserves more than that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping that there is no settlement .
I was thinking Nokia was trying to achieve some cross-licensing agreement to use the multi-touch technology , and Apple seeing they can use that to keep everyone else " one step back " , refused .
I 'm a bit worried Nokia settles down to obtain licensing for the multi-touch ( which Apple probably wants to sell for much more than it should ) , and I think Nokia deserves more than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping that there is no settlement.
I was thinking Nokia was trying to achieve some cross-licensing agreement to use the multi-touch technology, and Apple seeing they can use that to keep everyone else "one step back", refused.
I'm a bit worried Nokia settles down to obtain licensing for the multi-touch (which Apple probably wants to sell for much more than it should), and I think Nokia deserves more than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798964</id>
	<title>I'm rooting for Nokia on this one</title>
	<author>AmonTheMetalhead</author>
	<datestamp>1263749040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never been much of an Apple fan, and ever since they patented "multi touch" then can go crawl under a rock &amp; die for all i care.<br>
<br>
Go Nokia Go! <br>
<br>
PS: Isn't ACTA pushing for global software patents?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never been much of an Apple fan , and ever since they patented " multi touch " then can go crawl under a rock &amp; die for all i care .
Go Nokia Go !
PS : Is n't ACTA pushing for global software patents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never been much of an Apple fan, and ever since they patented "multi touch" then can go crawl under a rock &amp; die for all i care.
Go Nokia Go!
PS: Isn't ACTA pushing for global software patents?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796420</id>
	<title>Re:Sue first, ask questions later</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263670620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is it really cheaper to sue for peace? I mean, can't the legal teams for both companies see this down the road and come to some sort of mutual agreement in advance?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Do you not think Nokia has been negotiating with Apple from the moment they released the iphone (3 years), they finally got sick of the delay tactics and went to the courts. This is a bit of tit for tat on Apple's part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really cheaper to sue for peace ?
I mean , ca n't the legal teams for both companies see this down the road and come to some sort of mutual agreement in advance ?
Do you not think Nokia has been negotiating with Apple from the moment they released the iphone ( 3 years ) , they finally got sick of the delay tactics and went to the courts .
This is a bit of tit for tat on Apple 's part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really cheaper to sue for peace?
I mean, can't the legal teams for both companies see this down the road and come to some sort of mutual agreement in advance?
Do you not think Nokia has been negotiating with Apple from the moment they released the iphone (3 years), they finally got sick of the delay tactics and went to the courts.
This is a bit of tit for tat on Apple's part.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798488</id>
	<title>Re:AppleNokia!</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1263745080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You realize that Apple's UI would come with Apple's OS and Apple's lockdown policy? It's unlikely that they'd port Cocoa touch to Linux even though they already have a smartphone OS that does everything they want. Likewise, I don't see much of a business case for allowing the user to customize his phone. If anything, you'd see both lines continued in parallel.<br>
<br>
Also, neither company has any reason to merge. Both of their smartphone businesses are going well; Nokia can most likely just dodge Apple's patents if things go wrong and Apple doesn't have the money to strongarm Nokia into anything. Plus, every time Apple tries to mix their brand with someone else's it desn't go very well (eg. the HP iPod, the Motorola ROKR...).<br>
<br>
This will end with both companies agreeing on licensing terms and those terms will be closer to what Nokia wants than to what Apple wants. Apple has a few cool UI things; Nokia has patents neccessary to make any kind of phone at all. Most of Apple's patents just aren't quite worth (to Nokia) as much as those they license off Ericcson etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that Apple 's UI would come with Apple 's OS and Apple 's lockdown policy ?
It 's unlikely that they 'd port Cocoa touch to Linux even though they already have a smartphone OS that does everything they want .
Likewise , I do n't see much of a business case for allowing the user to customize his phone .
If anything , you 'd see both lines continued in parallel .
Also , neither company has any reason to merge .
Both of their smartphone businesses are going well ; Nokia can most likely just dodge Apple 's patents if things go wrong and Apple does n't have the money to strongarm Nokia into anything .
Plus , every time Apple tries to mix their brand with someone else 's it des n't go very well ( eg .
the HP iPod , the Motorola ROKR... ) .
This will end with both companies agreeing on licensing terms and those terms will be closer to what Nokia wants than to what Apple wants .
Apple has a few cool UI things ; Nokia has patents neccessary to make any kind of phone at all .
Most of Apple 's patents just are n't quite worth ( to Nokia ) as much as those they license off Ericcson etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that Apple's UI would come with Apple's OS and Apple's lockdown policy?
It's unlikely that they'd port Cocoa touch to Linux even though they already have a smartphone OS that does everything they want.
Likewise, I don't see much of a business case for allowing the user to customize his phone.
If anything, you'd see both lines continued in parallel.
Also, neither company has any reason to merge.
Both of their smartphone businesses are going well; Nokia can most likely just dodge Apple's patents if things go wrong and Apple doesn't have the money to strongarm Nokia into anything.
Plus, every time Apple tries to mix their brand with someone else's it desn't go very well (eg.
the HP iPod, the Motorola ROKR...).
This will end with both companies agreeing on licensing terms and those terms will be closer to what Nokia wants than to what Apple wants.
Apple has a few cool UI things; Nokia has patents neccessary to make any kind of phone at all.
Most of Apple's patents just aren't quite worth (to Nokia) as much as those they license off Ericcson etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796908</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263723540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> The 10 patents it accuses Apple of violating are related to making phones able to run on GSM, 3G, and Wi-Fi networks</p></div><p> which sounds like a trivial thing to patent to begin with. How again are patents really contributing to the general good?</p></div><p>Trivial? Wow? You realize Nokia originally developed all this technology. You wouldn't have mobile phones without Nokia today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 10 patents it accuses Apple of violating are related to making phones able to run on GSM , 3G , and Wi-Fi networks which sounds like a trivial thing to patent to begin with .
How again are patents really contributing to the general good ? Trivial ?
Wow ? You realize Nokia originally developed all this technology .
You would n't have mobile phones without Nokia today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The 10 patents it accuses Apple of violating are related to making phones able to run on GSM, 3G, and Wi-Fi networks which sounds like a trivial thing to patent to begin with.
How again are patents really contributing to the general good?Trivial?
Wow? You realize Nokia originally developed all this technology.
You wouldn't have mobile phones without Nokia today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30800806</id>
	<title>Apple has more to lose here</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1263720300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US market is currently a lost cause for Nokia anyway, and Nokia makes most of its money on low-end phones worldwide.  If Apple and Nokia shipments in the US are affected, Apple is in far greater trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US market is currently a lost cause for Nokia anyway , and Nokia makes most of its money on low-end phones worldwide .
If Apple and Nokia shipments in the US are affected , Apple is in far greater trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US market is currently a lost cause for Nokia anyway, and Nokia makes most of its money on low-end phones worldwide.
If Apple and Nokia shipments in the US are affected, Apple is in far greater trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796584</id>
	<title>Patent regime became rotten</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263760080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There are patents for very minute parts of various systems, so many working systems like, say, a measly iPod, touch on whole lotta patents, held by various parties.
</p><p>
So, inevitably, it becomes lawyers' game.  My army of lawyers can annihilate your army of lawyers.  You're a two-bit player without a lawyer army?  You're not qualified to play the patent game.
</p><p>
The small-scale inventors with brilliant idea to benefit by the patent regime is a myth.
</p><p>
One can argue that's the case with all things legal, and I am not sure I disagree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are patents for very minute parts of various systems , so many working systems like , say , a measly iPod , touch on whole lotta patents , held by various parties .
So , inevitably , it becomes lawyers ' game .
My army of lawyers can annihilate your army of lawyers .
You 're a two-bit player without a lawyer army ?
You 're not qualified to play the patent game .
The small-scale inventors with brilliant idea to benefit by the patent regime is a myth .
One can argue that 's the case with all things legal , and I am not sure I disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There are patents for very minute parts of various systems, so many working systems like, say, a measly iPod, touch on whole lotta patents, held by various parties.
So, inevitably, it becomes lawyers' game.
My army of lawyers can annihilate your army of lawyers.
You're a two-bit player without a lawyer army?
You're not qualified to play the patent game.
The small-scale inventors with brilliant idea to benefit by the patent regime is a myth.
One can argue that's the case with all things legal, and I am not sure I disagree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797512</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1263734940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But I can see your point WRT market cap. Apple has a lot of money to throw around.</p></div></blockquote><p>Market cap != cash.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I can see your point WRT market cap .
Apple has a lot of money to throw around.Market cap ! = cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I can see your point WRT market cap.
Apple has a lot of money to throw around.Market cap != cash.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796920</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263723660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your view is stereotypical US worldview, which downplays market stability the company has acquired, especially on non-domestic markets, to quite a bit. This illusion is also the reason why Apple stocks are so overvalued and Nokia stocks are not doing very well. US investors, with their understandably but still pointlessly narrow worldview affect both companies' value more than it would make sense.</p><p>I think future of Apple is actually very much more unpredictable than that of Nokia. It's also a giant gamble to let so profilic licensing negotiation regarding so essential function of their main product to escalate to the court level from Apple's part.</p><p>What I expect that has been going on is that Apple would have tried to offer cross-licensing deal, offering subportion of their UI patents for GSM/3GPP essential patents of Nokia, knowing that this would make Nokia fear that other essential patent owners would see it as aversion from FRAND practices, and potentially even put Apple stronger position in requiring cross-licensing deals from other GSM IP owners. Anyway, Apple has nothing to lose if it tries to make GSM IP owners fight with each other and thus weaken them in comparison to itself. It's primary goal might be changing or breaking the whole FRAND practice of GSM patents, obviously for its' own benefit. What it doesn't have is capability to dispute the essentialness of the selected Nokia patents. In this regard, it's really a gamble; even in Nokia-Qualcomm dispute, Nokia minimized its losses to paying some licensing fees when the dispute was on.</p><p>What I fear, as someone that's reasonably close and dependent on Nokia R&amp;D ecosystem, is that Nokia has itself stepped too far from FRAND practices and Apple really has something to claim on that front. I don't believe Nokia lawyers are as much idiots as Apple bosses are bigots; but somehow this situation has occurred. It would be nice to know how, but unlikely to happen for several years...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your view is stereotypical US worldview , which downplays market stability the company has acquired , especially on non-domestic markets , to quite a bit .
This illusion is also the reason why Apple stocks are so overvalued and Nokia stocks are not doing very well .
US investors , with their understandably but still pointlessly narrow worldview affect both companies ' value more than it would make sense.I think future of Apple is actually very much more unpredictable than that of Nokia .
It 's also a giant gamble to let so profilic licensing negotiation regarding so essential function of their main product to escalate to the court level from Apple 's part.What I expect that has been going on is that Apple would have tried to offer cross-licensing deal , offering subportion of their UI patents for GSM/3GPP essential patents of Nokia , knowing that this would make Nokia fear that other essential patent owners would see it as aversion from FRAND practices , and potentially even put Apple stronger position in requiring cross-licensing deals from other GSM IP owners .
Anyway , Apple has nothing to lose if it tries to make GSM IP owners fight with each other and thus weaken them in comparison to itself .
It 's primary goal might be changing or breaking the whole FRAND practice of GSM patents , obviously for its ' own benefit .
What it does n't have is capability to dispute the essentialness of the selected Nokia patents .
In this regard , it 's really a gamble ; even in Nokia-Qualcomm dispute , Nokia minimized its losses to paying some licensing fees when the dispute was on.What I fear , as someone that 's reasonably close and dependent on Nokia R&amp;D ecosystem , is that Nokia has itself stepped too far from FRAND practices and Apple really has something to claim on that front .
I do n't believe Nokia lawyers are as much idiots as Apple bosses are bigots ; but somehow this situation has occurred .
It would be nice to know how , but unlikely to happen for several years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your view is stereotypical US worldview, which downplays market stability the company has acquired, especially on non-domestic markets, to quite a bit.
This illusion is also the reason why Apple stocks are so overvalued and Nokia stocks are not doing very well.
US investors, with their understandably but still pointlessly narrow worldview affect both companies' value more than it would make sense.I think future of Apple is actually very much more unpredictable than that of Nokia.
It's also a giant gamble to let so profilic licensing negotiation regarding so essential function of their main product to escalate to the court level from Apple's part.What I expect that has been going on is that Apple would have tried to offer cross-licensing deal, offering subportion of their UI patents for GSM/3GPP essential patents of Nokia, knowing that this would make Nokia fear that other essential patent owners would see it as aversion from FRAND practices, and potentially even put Apple stronger position in requiring cross-licensing deals from other GSM IP owners.
Anyway, Apple has nothing to lose if it tries to make GSM IP owners fight with each other and thus weaken them in comparison to itself.
It's primary goal might be changing or breaking the whole FRAND practice of GSM patents, obviously for its' own benefit.
What it doesn't have is capability to dispute the essentialness of the selected Nokia patents.
In this regard, it's really a gamble; even in Nokia-Qualcomm dispute, Nokia minimized its losses to paying some licensing fees when the dispute was on.What I fear, as someone that's reasonably close and dependent on Nokia R&amp;D ecosystem, is that Nokia has itself stepped too far from FRAND practices and Apple really has something to claim on that front.
I don't believe Nokia lawyers are as much idiots as Apple bosses are bigots; but somehow this situation has occurred.
It would be nice to know how, but unlikely to happen for several years...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798656</id>
	<title>Re:Arrogant Apple Strikes Again!</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1263746280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course Apple want to play by the rules - they are not simply saying "nah nah we don't have to licence Nokia's patents". They are arguing about the nature of Nokia's strong arming (that under the rules that Nokia agreed to when their patented tech became part of the GSM standard they would not be discriminatory in their cross licencing or charging of fees). Apple are claiming that Nokia are breaking those rules and are after far more from Apple than anyone else they licence their patents to. Nokia are, of course, saying that it's all fair and fine. The two don't agree, thus courts get involved. It's not rocket surgery. They will eventually settle and the patents will be cross licenced. Apple aren't seeking to just *not pay* - they just don;t want to be bullied into paying much more than anyone else Nokia has dealt with (and while that in itself is not ordinarily something they can moan about, it is when Nokia created the GSM standard with their patents).</p><p>I'd be interested to hear how Apple have "lawyer mobbed" their way out of playing by the rules - do you have any specific citations? I am genuinely curious, although since you seem to think are not held to the same standard as any company in the eyes of the law, I suspect it's just biased ranting.</p><p>Disclaimer: I am not rabidly "pro-apple" or "anti-anyone-who-goes-against-apple" - I just tend to actually look at what is being discussed and try not to make sweeping generalisations based on my own bias. I have no idea which way this one will come out - clearly Nokia has put a great deal of R&amp;D into GSM and mobil tech and obviously Apple needs to pay to use that tech. We do not know Nokia's terms though. Apple are claiming that they are (contractually enforceable) unfair - are they? Who knows. That's what the courts are for, as well as some unpleasant grandstanding from both sides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course Apple want to play by the rules - they are not simply saying " nah nah we do n't have to licence Nokia 's patents " .
They are arguing about the nature of Nokia 's strong arming ( that under the rules that Nokia agreed to when their patented tech became part of the GSM standard they would not be discriminatory in their cross licencing or charging of fees ) .
Apple are claiming that Nokia are breaking those rules and are after far more from Apple than anyone else they licence their patents to .
Nokia are , of course , saying that it 's all fair and fine .
The two do n't agree , thus courts get involved .
It 's not rocket surgery .
They will eventually settle and the patents will be cross licenced .
Apple are n't seeking to just * not pay * - they just don ; t want to be bullied into paying much more than anyone else Nokia has dealt with ( and while that in itself is not ordinarily something they can moan about , it is when Nokia created the GSM standard with their patents ) .I 'd be interested to hear how Apple have " lawyer mobbed " their way out of playing by the rules - do you have any specific citations ?
I am genuinely curious , although since you seem to think are not held to the same standard as any company in the eyes of the law , I suspect it 's just biased ranting.Disclaimer : I am not rabidly " pro-apple " or " anti-anyone-who-goes-against-apple " - I just tend to actually look at what is being discussed and try not to make sweeping generalisations based on my own bias .
I have no idea which way this one will come out - clearly Nokia has put a great deal of R&amp;D into GSM and mobil tech and obviously Apple needs to pay to use that tech .
We do not know Nokia 's terms though .
Apple are claiming that they are ( contractually enforceable ) unfair - are they ?
Who knows .
That 's what the courts are for , as well as some unpleasant grandstanding from both sides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course Apple want to play by the rules - they are not simply saying "nah nah we don't have to licence Nokia's patents".
They are arguing about the nature of Nokia's strong arming (that under the rules that Nokia agreed to when their patented tech became part of the GSM standard they would not be discriminatory in their cross licencing or charging of fees).
Apple are claiming that Nokia are breaking those rules and are after far more from Apple than anyone else they licence their patents to.
Nokia are, of course, saying that it's all fair and fine.
The two don't agree, thus courts get involved.
It's not rocket surgery.
They will eventually settle and the patents will be cross licenced.
Apple aren't seeking to just *not pay* - they just don;t want to be bullied into paying much more than anyone else Nokia has dealt with (and while that in itself is not ordinarily something they can moan about, it is when Nokia created the GSM standard with their patents).I'd be interested to hear how Apple have "lawyer mobbed" their way out of playing by the rules - do you have any specific citations?
I am genuinely curious, although since you seem to think are not held to the same standard as any company in the eyes of the law, I suspect it's just biased ranting.Disclaimer: I am not rabidly "pro-apple" or "anti-anyone-who-goes-against-apple" - I just tend to actually look at what is being discussed and try not to make sweeping generalisations based on my own bias.
I have no idea which way this one will come out - clearly Nokia has put a great deal of R&amp;D into GSM and mobil tech and obviously Apple needs to pay to use that tech.
We do not know Nokia's terms though.
Apple are claiming that they are (contractually enforceable) unfair - are they?
Who knows.
That's what the courts are for, as well as some unpleasant grandstanding from both sides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797600</id>
	<title>Re:Arrogant Apple Strikes Again!</title>
	<author>maccam</author>
	<datestamp>1263736440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who exactly has been crushed by Apple simply for simply criticing the company?  Paul Thurott and Rob Enderle have been "mentioning Apple in a less than positive light" and worse for years. Why have they not been crushed by the arrogant Apple that seems to exist in your mind?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who exactly has been crushed by Apple simply for simply criticing the company ?
Paul Thurott and Rob Enderle have been " mentioning Apple in a less than positive light " and worse for years .
Why have they not been crushed by the arrogant Apple that seems to exist in your mind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who exactly has been crushed by Apple simply for simply criticing the company?
Paul Thurott and Rob Enderle have been "mentioning Apple in a less than positive light" and worse for years.
Why have they not been crushed by the arrogant Apple that seems to exist in your mind?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528</id>
	<title>Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>NimbleSquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1263759060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reality is that, globally, Nokia is the larger company with a larger patent portfolio and has been in business far longer than Apple. Apple may have some key patents, but Nokia certainly have more in relation to mobile phone technology. The first patents at issue were ones necessary for GSM operation: without them, no GSM phone. It seems Apple, for whatever reason (possibly to maintain the secrecy of the iPhone development), decided not to sort out licensing <b>before</b> releasing the iPhone. This could be bad for Apple, if Nokia can prove in court that Apple deliberatly infringed on the patents to get the iPhone to market. Sure, Apple is arguing that license terms were not FRAND (as required by the GSM Association), but disagreement with licensing terms is not an exemption to put a product on the market.
<br> <br>
Going to the USITC is simply the next step in this legal tit-for-tat. The seven patents at issue in Nokia's filing to the USITC (involving camera, antenna and power management technology) were different to the original ten patents it sued for in October (involving GSM and wireless technology). Apple countersued in December for thirteen patents. I have yet to see if Apple's USITC filing involes the same thirteen patents. If it does, Apple's USITC filing could be thrown out to avoid a situation of double jeopardy. If it doesn't it would be interesting to see what patents are in Apple's USITC filing.
<br> <br>
It seems that Apple is trying to force a settlement out of Nokia, but Apple have for more to lose in this situation. Sure, there is a possibility of a ban on Nokia phones in the US, but most of Nokia's market lies outside the US. It is hard to tell what will happen next, but if a settlement is going to happen it won't be soon. I wouldn't be surprised if Nokia's next step is to take the fight international, with a filing in the EU. I can't help feeling that Apple may come out of this battle worse off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is that , globally , Nokia is the larger company with a larger patent portfolio and has been in business far longer than Apple .
Apple may have some key patents , but Nokia certainly have more in relation to mobile phone technology .
The first patents at issue were ones necessary for GSM operation : without them , no GSM phone .
It seems Apple , for whatever reason ( possibly to maintain the secrecy of the iPhone development ) , decided not to sort out licensing before releasing the iPhone .
This could be bad for Apple , if Nokia can prove in court that Apple deliberatly infringed on the patents to get the iPhone to market .
Sure , Apple is arguing that license terms were not FRAND ( as required by the GSM Association ) , but disagreement with licensing terms is not an exemption to put a product on the market .
Going to the USITC is simply the next step in this legal tit-for-tat .
The seven patents at issue in Nokia 's filing to the USITC ( involving camera , antenna and power management technology ) were different to the original ten patents it sued for in October ( involving GSM and wireless technology ) .
Apple countersued in December for thirteen patents .
I have yet to see if Apple 's USITC filing involes the same thirteen patents .
If it does , Apple 's USITC filing could be thrown out to avoid a situation of double jeopardy .
If it does n't it would be interesting to see what patents are in Apple 's USITC filing .
It seems that Apple is trying to force a settlement out of Nokia , but Apple have for more to lose in this situation .
Sure , there is a possibility of a ban on Nokia phones in the US , but most of Nokia 's market lies outside the US .
It is hard to tell what will happen next , but if a settlement is going to happen it wo n't be soon .
I would n't be surprised if Nokia 's next step is to take the fight international , with a filing in the EU .
I ca n't help feeling that Apple may come out of this battle worse off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is that, globally, Nokia is the larger company with a larger patent portfolio and has been in business far longer than Apple.
Apple may have some key patents, but Nokia certainly have more in relation to mobile phone technology.
The first patents at issue were ones necessary for GSM operation: without them, no GSM phone.
It seems Apple, for whatever reason (possibly to maintain the secrecy of the iPhone development), decided not to sort out licensing before releasing the iPhone.
This could be bad for Apple, if Nokia can prove in court that Apple deliberatly infringed on the patents to get the iPhone to market.
Sure, Apple is arguing that license terms were not FRAND (as required by the GSM Association), but disagreement with licensing terms is not an exemption to put a product on the market.
Going to the USITC is simply the next step in this legal tit-for-tat.
The seven patents at issue in Nokia's filing to the USITC (involving camera, antenna and power management technology) were different to the original ten patents it sued for in October (involving GSM and wireless technology).
Apple countersued in December for thirteen patents.
I have yet to see if Apple's USITC filing involes the same thirteen patents.
If it does, Apple's USITC filing could be thrown out to avoid a situation of double jeopardy.
If it doesn't it would be interesting to see what patents are in Apple's USITC filing.
It seems that Apple is trying to force a settlement out of Nokia, but Apple have for more to lose in this situation.
Sure, there is a possibility of a ban on Nokia phones in the US, but most of Nokia's market lies outside the US.
It is hard to tell what will happen next, but if a settlement is going to happen it won't be soon.
I wouldn't be surprised if Nokia's next step is to take the fight international, with a filing in the EU.
I can't help feeling that Apple may come out of this battle worse off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30804154</id>
	<title>Re:Ban Nokia from the USA</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263746340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sick of foreign companies stomping all over the USA.</p></div><p>Don't be mad at Nokia then, be mad at NAFTA. Or more to the point, the robber barons who put it together. And how American is Apple anyway? Their PCBs are made by Foxconn just like the Taiwanese brands. No large corporation is really a USA affair any more; they are all multinational. Just like Apple.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sick of foreign companies stomping all over the USA.Do n't be mad at Nokia then , be mad at NAFTA .
Or more to the point , the robber barons who put it together .
And how American is Apple anyway ?
Their PCBs are made by Foxconn just like the Taiwanese brands .
No large corporation is really a USA affair any more ; they are all multinational .
Just like Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sick of foreign companies stomping all over the USA.Don't be mad at Nokia then, be mad at NAFTA.
Or more to the point, the robber barons who put it together.
And how American is Apple anyway?
Their PCBs are made by Foxconn just like the Taiwanese brands.
No large corporation is really a USA affair any more; they are all multinational.
Just like Apple.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796406</id>
	<title>Re:Sue first, ask questions later</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263670440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was this guy 2000 years ago who got nailed to a tree for saying stuff like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was this guy 2000 years ago who got nailed to a tree for saying stuff like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was this guy 2000 years ago who got nailed to a tree for saying stuff like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30799350</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263752280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dividends are not a right to common stock holders<br>dividends are double taxed once on the corporate level and another on the personal level (income tax) capital gain is not.<br>not all companies pay dividends i believe microsoft has never paid one too.<br>stock price usually falls to an amount equal to the dividend pay out.<br>there are many types of dividends not just cash like stock splits which apple have done in the past.</p><p>dividends are not always attractive to investors its perfectly normal and very acceptable for a company to never issue any kind of dividends.</p><p>if you like dividends AAPL is not the stock for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dividends are not a right to common stock holdersdividends are double taxed once on the corporate level and another on the personal level ( income tax ) capital gain is not.not all companies pay dividends i believe microsoft has never paid one too.stock price usually falls to an amount equal to the dividend pay out.there are many types of dividends not just cash like stock splits which apple have done in the past.dividends are not always attractive to investors its perfectly normal and very acceptable for a company to never issue any kind of dividends.if you like dividends AAPL is not the stock for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dividends are not a right to common stock holdersdividends are double taxed once on the corporate level and another on the personal level (income tax) capital gain is not.not all companies pay dividends i believe microsoft has never paid one too.stock price usually falls to an amount equal to the dividend pay out.there are many types of dividends not just cash like stock splits which apple have done in the past.dividends are not always attractive to investors its perfectly normal and very acceptable for a company to never issue any kind of dividends.if you like dividends AAPL is not the stock for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086</id>
	<title>Arrogant Apple Strikes Again!</title>
	<author>sensationull</author>
	<datestamp>1263726960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's arrogance shines through again as they deny that rules apply to them.  They are quite happy to crush people, products and companies for even mentioning Apple in a less than positive light but refuse to accept that other companies have rights to.  Nokia made more of the sodding iPhone than Apple did in terms of R&amp;D and now as usuall are getting bitchy that people are actually expecting them to play by the rules.  Something they have mostly avoided or lawyer mobbed their way out of until now.
</p><p>
I hope that Nokia epicly crushes Apple on the legal front to finally put Apple in its place for once.  Chances are though that the usual Apple chroneisum will triumph when the standard issue iPod equiped, narrow minded US legal system gets its incompetant mitts on it.
</p><p>
I agree that they should take it to the EU, not that I usually support the EU's special brand of crazy that gives them liscence to print money from other peoples accounts (Intel, Microsoft) but it would be fantastic to finally see Apple being held to the same standard as everyone else.  Hell the EU even questioned the mighty iTunes, maybe this time they will actually take action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's arrogance shines through again as they deny that rules apply to them .
They are quite happy to crush people , products and companies for even mentioning Apple in a less than positive light but refuse to accept that other companies have rights to .
Nokia made more of the sodding iPhone than Apple did in terms of R&amp;D and now as usuall are getting bitchy that people are actually expecting them to play by the rules .
Something they have mostly avoided or lawyer mobbed their way out of until now .
I hope that Nokia epicly crushes Apple on the legal front to finally put Apple in its place for once .
Chances are though that the usual Apple chroneisum will triumph when the standard issue iPod equiped , narrow minded US legal system gets its incompetant mitts on it .
I agree that they should take it to the EU , not that I usually support the EU 's special brand of crazy that gives them liscence to print money from other peoples accounts ( Intel , Microsoft ) but it would be fantastic to finally see Apple being held to the same standard as everyone else .
Hell the EU even questioned the mighty iTunes , maybe this time they will actually take action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's arrogance shines through again as they deny that rules apply to them.
They are quite happy to crush people, products and companies for even mentioning Apple in a less than positive light but refuse to accept that other companies have rights to.
Nokia made more of the sodding iPhone than Apple did in terms of R&amp;D and now as usuall are getting bitchy that people are actually expecting them to play by the rules.
Something they have mostly avoided or lawyer mobbed their way out of until now.
I hope that Nokia epicly crushes Apple on the legal front to finally put Apple in its place for once.
Chances are though that the usual Apple chroneisum will triumph when the standard issue iPod equiped, narrow minded US legal system gets its incompetant mitts on it.
I agree that they should take it to the EU, not that I usually support the EU's special brand of crazy that gives them liscence to print money from other peoples accounts (Intel, Microsoft) but it would be fantastic to finally see Apple being held to the same standard as everyone else.
Hell the EU even questioned the mighty iTunes, maybe this time they will actually take action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797222</id>
	<title>Apple are the bad guys here.</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1263729360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just a feeling I have, but somehow the evil American corporation is more likely then the evil Finnish corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a feeling I have , but somehow the evil American corporation is more likely then the evil Finnish corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a feeling I have, but somehow the evil American corporation is more likely then the evil Finnish corporation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798630</id>
	<title>It is becoming more and more obvious</title>
	<author>CondeZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1263746160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that <a href="http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual\_property/" title="cat-v.org">the patent system is a monster completely out of control</a> [cat-v.org].</p><p>We have gone from a system where (supposedly) the best products at the lowest price were successful, to one where the company with the best lawyers can shut down anyone else and where serving consumers is a lower and lower priority because so called 'intellectual property' can be used to limit their options.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that the patent system is a monster completely out of control [ cat-v.org ] .We have gone from a system where ( supposedly ) the best products at the lowest price were successful , to one where the company with the best lawyers can shut down anyone else and where serving consumers is a lower and lower priority because so called 'intellectual property ' can be used to limit their options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the patent system is a monster completely out of control [cat-v.org].We have gone from a system where (supposedly) the best products at the lowest price were successful, to one where the company with the best lawyers can shut down anyone else and where serving consumers is a lower and lower priority because so called 'intellectual property' can be used to limit their options.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30817630</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>CountBrass</author>
	<datestamp>1263901140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually in the only useful measure, worth, Apple is three times the size of Nokia and has more cash in the bank than Nokia is worth.

There will be some huffing and puffing and it probably won't get near to a court and then there will be agreement and Apple and Nokia wil be best friends for ever and ever.

This is business, not some silly fight to the death as the (so far only Nokia judging by the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. posting) fan boys seems to imagine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually in the only useful measure , worth , Apple is three times the size of Nokia and has more cash in the bank than Nokia is worth .
There will be some huffing and puffing and it probably wo n't get near to a court and then there will be agreement and Apple and Nokia wil be best friends for ever and ever .
This is business , not some silly fight to the death as the ( so far only Nokia judging by the / .
posting ) fan boys seems to imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually in the only useful measure, worth, Apple is three times the size of Nokia and has more cash in the bank than Nokia is worth.
There will be some huffing and puffing and it probably won't get near to a court and then there will be agreement and Apple and Nokia wil be best friends for ever and ever.
This is business, not some silly fight to the death as the (so far only Nokia judging by the /.
posting) fan boys seems to imagine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796602</id>
	<title>Haha.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263760380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple is posturing.  Trying to take Nokia on in the mobile phone arena patent domain is like Bill Gates trying to fight Klitschko in a heavyweight boxing title.  Apple will get destroyed.  They really should just rush to settle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is posturing .
Trying to take Nokia on in the mobile phone arena patent domain is like Bill Gates trying to fight Klitschko in a heavyweight boxing title .
Apple will get destroyed .
They really should just rush to settle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is posturing.
Trying to take Nokia on in the mobile phone arena patent domain is like Bill Gates trying to fight Klitschko in a heavyweight boxing title.
Apple will get destroyed.
They really should just rush to settle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797806</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless patents</title>
	<author>CptPicard</author>
	<datestamp>1263739140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Trivial"? How exactly? They are actual, real, physical hardware patents that were developed when the industry was in its infancy just so that there is a cellphone to begin with! Nokia and Ericsson pretty much created the technological fundamentals, and now people are willing to take them for granted... most importantly, the engineering stuff that goes into this is actually far more challenging in a lot of ways than anything on the software side (I very much dislike software patents like most here...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Trivial " ?
How exactly ?
They are actual , real , physical hardware patents that were developed when the industry was in its infancy just so that there is a cellphone to begin with !
Nokia and Ericsson pretty much created the technological fundamentals , and now people are willing to take them for granted... most importantly , the engineering stuff that goes into this is actually far more challenging in a lot of ways than anything on the software side ( I very much dislike software patents like most here... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Trivial"?
How exactly?
They are actual, real, physical hardware patents that were developed when the industry was in its infancy just so that there is a cellphone to begin with!
Nokia and Ericsson pretty much created the technological fundamentals, and now people are willing to take them for granted... most importantly, the engineering stuff that goes into this is actually far more challenging in a lot of ways than anything on the software side (I very much dislike software patents like most here...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796378</id>
	<title>Worthless patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263669840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When will the US patent system be reformed? The patents that the article references are <p><div class="quote"><p> The 10 patents it accuses Apple of violating are related to making phones able to run on GSM, 3G, and Wi-Fi networks</p> </div><p> which sounds like a trivial thing to patent to begin with. How again are patents really contributing to the general good?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When will the US patent system be reformed ?
The patents that the article references are The 10 patents it accuses Apple of violating are related to making phones able to run on GSM , 3G , and Wi-Fi networks which sounds like a trivial thing to patent to begin with .
How again are patents really contributing to the general good ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will the US patent system be reformed?
The patents that the article references are  The 10 patents it accuses Apple of violating are related to making phones able to run on GSM, 3G, and Wi-Fi networks  which sounds like a trivial thing to patent to begin with.
How again are patents really contributing to the general good?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797306</id>
	<title>Re:Sue first, ask questions later</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263730680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the end of the day, we use lawyers whenever there is conflict in order to resolve conflict without resorting to bashing each other over the head with clubs and large rocks.</p><p>For this reason, we always associate lawyers with conflict and unpleasantness.  Perhaps this closeness to conflict does bring out the worst in the lawyers themselves.</p><p>But it can also bring out the best in people:  Think of some of the great lawyers e.g. Mahatma Ghandi or Nelson Mandela.</p><p>Or would you rather see this conflict solved gladiatorially between Steve Jobs and Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo?  In that case, twenty quatludes on the tallest one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end of the day , we use lawyers whenever there is conflict in order to resolve conflict without resorting to bashing each other over the head with clubs and large rocks.For this reason , we always associate lawyers with conflict and unpleasantness .
Perhaps this closeness to conflict does bring out the worst in the lawyers themselves.But it can also bring out the best in people : Think of some of the great lawyers e.g .
Mahatma Ghandi or Nelson Mandela.Or would you rather see this conflict solved gladiatorially between Steve Jobs and Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo ?
In that case , twenty quatludes on the tallest one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the end of the day, we use lawyers whenever there is conflict in order to resolve conflict without resorting to bashing each other over the head with clubs and large rocks.For this reason, we always associate lawyers with conflict and unpleasantness.
Perhaps this closeness to conflict does bring out the worst in the lawyers themselves.But it can also bring out the best in people:  Think of some of the great lawyers e.g.
Mahatma Ghandi or Nelson Mandela.Or would you rather see this conflict solved gladiatorially between Steve Jobs and Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo?
In that case, twenty quatludes on the tallest one...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30805076</id>
	<title>For large corporations</title>
	<author>rinwod</author>
	<datestamp>1263755940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For large corporations, the whole purpose of writing patents is so that you can file countersuit when some other large company claims infringement. I have personally had my hand in writing a few extremely worthless patents, but was pushed to do so by my managers (and rewarded for doing so), because it gives us more ammo to fire back at our competitors should they decide to pick a fight. <a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Enzyte-Review---Do-Free-Enzyte-Male-Enhancement-Pills-Works?&amp;id=3486405" title="ezinearticles.com" rel="nofollow">Enzyte Review</a> [ezinearticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>For large corporations , the whole purpose of writing patents is so that you can file countersuit when some other large company claims infringement .
I have personally had my hand in writing a few extremely worthless patents , but was pushed to do so by my managers ( and rewarded for doing so ) , because it gives us more ammo to fire back at our competitors should they decide to pick a fight .
Enzyte Review [ ezinearticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For large corporations, the whole purpose of writing patents is so that you can file countersuit when some other large company claims infringement.
I have personally had my hand in writing a few extremely worthless patents, but was pushed to do so by my managers (and rewarded for doing so), because it gives us more ammo to fire back at our competitors should they decide to pick a fight.
Enzyte Review [ezinearticles.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796746</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263720300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to Wikipedia, Apple has 35,000 employees worldwide. Nokia has over 128,000. It has 39,350 employees just in research and development. When over 30\% of your employees are in R&amp;D, you're going to take your patents very seriously. In that sense, Nokia is much bigger than Apple. But I can see your point WRT market cap. Apple has a lot of money to throw around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Wikipedia , Apple has 35,000 employees worldwide .
Nokia has over 128,000 .
It has 39,350 employees just in research and development .
When over 30 \ % of your employees are in R&amp;D , you 're going to take your patents very seriously .
In that sense , Nokia is much bigger than Apple .
But I can see your point WRT market cap .
Apple has a lot of money to throw around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Wikipedia, Apple has 35,000 employees worldwide.
Nokia has over 128,000.
It has 39,350 employees just in research and development.
When over 30\% of your employees are in R&amp;D, you're going to take your patents very seriously.
In that sense, Nokia is much bigger than Apple.
But I can see your point WRT market cap.
Apple has a lot of money to throw around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796358</id>
	<title>Re:Sue first, ask questions later</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263669540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What colour is the sky in your fantasy world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What colour is the sky in your fantasy world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What colour is the sky in your fantasy world?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796722</id>
	<title>Re:What is wrong with patents</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1263720000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.coms wanted decades of revenue streams from what was to be short term protection.<br>
They bribed, bought, stole and rigged elections in the US until they got the laws passed and got biology/pharma added too.<br>
The little creative person is shut out.  Multinationals seal up an area for their tech for many decades.  They then swap amongst their peers and supply fabs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The .coms wanted decades of revenue streams from what was to be short term protection .
They bribed , bought , stole and rigged elections in the US until they got the laws passed and got biology/pharma added too .
The little creative person is shut out .
Multinationals seal up an area for their tech for many decades .
They then swap amongst their peers and supply fabs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The .coms wanted decades of revenue streams from what was to be short term protection.
They bribed, bought, stole and rigged elections in the US until they got the laws passed and got biology/pharma added too.
The little creative person is shut out.
Multinationals seal up an area for their tech for many decades.
They then swap amongst their peers and supply fabs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797276</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless patents</title>
	<author>Eunuchswear</author>
	<datestamp>1263730260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More proof that slashdot moderators are insane.  The comment:</p><blockquote><div><p>[making phones able to run on GSM, 3G, and Wi-Fi] sounds like a trivial thing</p></div></blockquote><p>gets modded "insightful".  WTF!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More proof that slashdot moderators are insane .
The comment : [ making phones able to run on GSM , 3G , and Wi-Fi ] sounds like a trivial thinggets modded " insightful " .
WTF !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More proof that slashdot moderators are insane.
The comment:[making phones able to run on GSM, 3G, and Wi-Fi] sounds like a trivial thinggets modded "insightful".
WTF!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796834</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>icsx</author>
	<datestamp>1263722040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nokia is Bigger. They have more employees because they do a hell of a lot more things than just design stuff and marketing. They have their own factories in which the phones are built. Apple just gives money to some chinese company to make their own iPhone and puts a hefty pricetag on the top. It's much easier to do 1 phone than 1+49 others. Nokia could sell out their factories and limit their company's agenda to management, R&amp;D and marketing but that would be just stupid at the scale which they are now. They controll everything from top to bottom, Apple has control over only the things that are on top. Apple is far from the leading top from mobile phones and has a lot to learn.
<br> <br>
Why would Apple would even want to buy Nokia? It's not like there's 50,1\% of shares free out there on the market, waiting for someone to buy them off. Even hostile takeover isn't possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia is Bigger .
They have more employees because they do a hell of a lot more things than just design stuff and marketing .
They have their own factories in which the phones are built .
Apple just gives money to some chinese company to make their own iPhone and puts a hefty pricetag on the top .
It 's much easier to do 1 phone than 1 + 49 others .
Nokia could sell out their factories and limit their company 's agenda to management , R&amp;D and marketing but that would be just stupid at the scale which they are now .
They controll everything from top to bottom , Apple has control over only the things that are on top .
Apple is far from the leading top from mobile phones and has a lot to learn .
Why would Apple would even want to buy Nokia ?
It 's not like there 's 50,1 \ % of shares free out there on the market , waiting for someone to buy them off .
Even hostile takeover is n't possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia is Bigger.
They have more employees because they do a hell of a lot more things than just design stuff and marketing.
They have their own factories in which the phones are built.
Apple just gives money to some chinese company to make their own iPhone and puts a hefty pricetag on the top.
It's much easier to do 1 phone than 1+49 others.
Nokia could sell out their factories and limit their company's agenda to management, R&amp;D and marketing but that would be just stupid at the scale which they are now.
They controll everything from top to bottom, Apple has control over only the things that are on top.
Apple is far from the leading top from mobile phones and has a lot to learn.
Why would Apple would even want to buy Nokia?
It's not like there's 50,1\% of shares free out there on the market, waiting for someone to buy them off.
Even hostile takeover isn't possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30799214</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263751140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I am not joking in the slightest, apple investors realize that just like everything else apple makes, their stock is heavily overpriced and tons of stupid people will buy it, even as dozens of competitors have better function and ROI at much lower prices.</p><p>On the other hand, buy and hold investors realize that they are investing, which carries the risk of not getting a return; especially when a company has no dividends currently. They either believe that apple will make so much cash that they will return some of it to investors or they really, really, really like icrap and are expecting apple to use their investment to make new icrap and want it more than they want a return on their investment that they could easily and reasonably obtain from dozens of competitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I am not joking in the slightest , apple investors realize that just like everything else apple makes , their stock is heavily overpriced and tons of stupid people will buy it , even as dozens of competitors have better function and ROI at much lower prices.On the other hand , buy and hold investors realize that they are investing , which carries the risk of not getting a return ; especially when a company has no dividends currently .
They either believe that apple will make so much cash that they will return some of it to investors or they really , really , really like icrap and are expecting apple to use their investment to make new icrap and want it more than they want a return on their investment that they could easily and reasonably obtain from dozens of competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I am not joking in the slightest, apple investors realize that just like everything else apple makes, their stock is heavily overpriced and tons of stupid people will buy it, even as dozens of competitors have better function and ROI at much lower prices.On the other hand, buy and hold investors realize that they are investing, which carries the risk of not getting a return; especially when a company has no dividends currently.
They either believe that apple will make so much cash that they will return some of it to investors or they really, really, really like icrap and are expecting apple to use their investment to make new icrap and want it more than they want a return on their investment that they could easily and reasonably obtain from dozens of competitors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798292</id>
	<title>Re:Arrogant Apple Strikes Again!</title>
	<author>wfolta</author>
	<datestamp>1263743700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Apple claims that the rules SHOULD apply to them, and that it is Nokia that is wanting to change the rules in the case of a competitor that scares them. Whether this is true or not will come out in court, I imagine.</p><p>Nokia's evidently poured a lot of money into phone R&amp;D, but looking at their phones almost none of this has extended to industrial design or user interface design. Even their "smart" phones look like a 1980's military design with a 1970's X-Windows user interface. And while they manage to have touch, they evidently never thought of using them as anything but 1980's style touch screens. So I do find it credible that they are treating Apple as a special threat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Apple claims that the rules SHOULD apply to them , and that it is Nokia that is wanting to change the rules in the case of a competitor that scares them .
Whether this is true or not will come out in court , I imagine.Nokia 's evidently poured a lot of money into phone R&amp;D , but looking at their phones almost none of this has extended to industrial design or user interface design .
Even their " smart " phones look like a 1980 's military design with a 1970 's X-Windows user interface .
And while they manage to have touch , they evidently never thought of using them as anything but 1980 's style touch screens .
So I do find it credible that they are treating Apple as a special threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Apple claims that the rules SHOULD apply to them, and that it is Nokia that is wanting to change the rules in the case of a competitor that scares them.
Whether this is true or not will come out in court, I imagine.Nokia's evidently poured a lot of money into phone R&amp;D, but looking at their phones almost none of this has extended to industrial design or user interface design.
Even their "smart" phones look like a 1980's military design with a 1970's X-Windows user interface.
And while they manage to have touch, they evidently never thought of using them as anything but 1980's style touch screens.
So I do find it credible that they are treating Apple as a special threat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796780</id>
	<title>This can only end in one way...</title>
	<author>Windwraith</author>
	<datestamp>1263720960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Apple and Nokia merger a reality</b> on Mon 15 Nov 07:25AM<br>Posted by ****** on Mon 15 Nov 07:25AM<br>from the war-becomes-love dept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple and Nokia merger a reality on Mon 15 Nov 07 : 25AMPosted by * * * * * * on Mon 15 Nov 07 : 25AMfrom the war-becomes-love dept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple and Nokia merger a reality on Mon 15 Nov 07:25AMPosted by ****** on Mon 15 Nov 07:25AMfrom the war-becomes-love dept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796870</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>rve</author>
	<datestamp>1263722760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget that Apple has fanboys, and Nokia does not. Nokia might as well settle now, apologise, pay an undisclosed sum and retreat from the American market again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget that Apple has fanboys , and Nokia does not .
Nokia might as well settle now , apologise , pay an undisclosed sum and retreat from the American market again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget that Apple has fanboys, and Nokia does not.
Nokia might as well settle now, apologise, pay an undisclosed sum and retreat from the American market again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30812488</id>
	<title>Blocking imports? Really?</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1263808860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's pretty damn foul from Apple. Do they fear competition that much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty damn foul from Apple .
Do they fear competition that much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty damn foul from Apple.
Do they fear competition that much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798922</id>
	<title>Re:Sue first, ask questions later</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263748680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this is why the patent system is broken, big companies can force the 'small innovator' (the classical emotional case for patents) to cross license (possibly under strict terms imposed on the smaller party. Your advantage is gone, and while you may have access to a big pool of patents now, you can't compete meaningfully as your first mover advantage is gone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is why the patent system is broken , big companies can force the 'small innovator ' ( the classical emotional case for patents ) to cross license ( possibly under strict terms imposed on the smaller party .
Your advantage is gone , and while you may have access to a big pool of patents now , you ca n't compete meaningfully as your first mover advantage is gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is why the patent system is broken, big companies can force the 'small innovator' (the classical emotional case for patents) to cross license (possibly under strict terms imposed on the smaller party.
Your advantage is gone, and while you may have access to a big pool of patents now, you can't compete meaningfully as your first mover advantage is gone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798310</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>wfolta</author>
	<datestamp>1263743820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple fought Apple Corps -- a similar David v Goliath battle (Apple is David) -- for decades before finally winning. Personally, I think the odds are about even in this fight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple fought Apple Corps -- a similar David v Goliath battle ( Apple is David ) -- for decades before finally winning .
Personally , I think the odds are about even in this fight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple fought Apple Corps -- a similar David v Goliath battle (Apple is David) -- for decades before finally winning.
Personally, I think the odds are about even in this fight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796730</id>
	<title>Standing ground</title>
	<author>icsx</author>
	<datestamp>1263720120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does Apple really think they can do a mobile phone to the market in few years without violating any of Nokia's iventions done in the past 20 years that are patented? They think they do but reality is different. This is just Apple's response to get better negotiation grounds and with luck, they get a Judge who has Apple laptop to the case. Only then Apple has chances to win 1 round but only lose at the end at the higher court level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Apple really think they can do a mobile phone to the market in few years without violating any of Nokia 's iventions done in the past 20 years that are patented ?
They think they do but reality is different .
This is just Apple 's response to get better negotiation grounds and with luck , they get a Judge who has Apple laptop to the case .
Only then Apple has chances to win 1 round but only lose at the end at the higher court level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Apple really think they can do a mobile phone to the market in few years without violating any of Nokia's iventions done in the past 20 years that are patented?
They think they do but reality is different.
This is just Apple's response to get better negotiation grounds and with luck, they get a Judge who has Apple laptop to the case.
Only then Apple has chances to win 1 round but only lose at the end at the higher court level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796926</id>
	<title>know the courts</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1263723780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, please. This is standard procedure in a lawsuit. Since the judges almost always try to get the parties to settle, you don't start with a reasonable demand, you start with the maximum the law allows for, because the other party does the same. Then you meet in the middle.</p><p>IANAL but I've done a number of corporate lawsuits, on both sides (suing and being sued). This is just how it works. If you actually get your initial demand, you'd be as surprised as everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , please .
This is standard procedure in a lawsuit .
Since the judges almost always try to get the parties to settle , you do n't start with a reasonable demand , you start with the maximum the law allows for , because the other party does the same .
Then you meet in the middle.IANAL but I 've done a number of corporate lawsuits , on both sides ( suing and being sued ) .
This is just how it works .
If you actually get your initial demand , you 'd be as surprised as everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, please.
This is standard procedure in a lawsuit.
Since the judges almost always try to get the parties to settle, you don't start with a reasonable demand, you start with the maximum the law allows for, because the other party does the same.
Then you meet in the middle.IANAL but I've done a number of corporate lawsuits, on both sides (suing and being sued).
This is just how it works.
If you actually get your initial demand, you'd be as surprised as everyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798446</id>
	<title>Here is how it will end: (Bug circumvented now.)</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263744780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lt;Nokia&gt; HEY APPLE<br>&lt;Nokia&gt; INSULT<br>&lt;Apple&gt; LAWSUIT<br>&lt;Nokia&gt; COUNTER-LAWSUIT<br>&lt;Apple&gt; QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE<br>&lt;Nokia&gt; SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE FUCK UP<br>&lt;Apple&gt; NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM<br>&lt;Nokia&gt; LAWSUIT<br>&lt;Nokia&gt; ADDON LAWSUIT<br>&lt;Apple&gt; COUNTER-LAWSUIT<br>&lt;Nokia&gt; COUNTER-COUNTER LAWSUIT<br>&lt;Apple&gt; NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON<br>&lt;FTC&gt; RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES<br>&lt;Apple&gt; WORDS OF PRAISE FOR BRIBERY<br>&lt;FTC&gt; ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HEY APPLE INSULT LAWSUIT COUNTER-LAWSUIT QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE FUCK UP NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM LAWSUIT ADDON LAWSUIT COUNTER-LAWSUIT COUNTER-COUNTER LAWSUIT NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES WORDS OF PRAISE FOR BRIBERY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS</tokentext>
<sentencetext> HEY APPLE INSULT LAWSUIT COUNTER-LAWSUIT QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE FUCK UP NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM LAWSUIT ADDON LAWSUIT COUNTER-LAWSUIT COUNTER-COUNTER LAWSUIT NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES WORDS OF PRAISE FOR BRIBERY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30817570</id>
	<title>Re:Sue first, ask questions later</title>
	<author>CountBrass</author>
	<datestamp>1263900240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's because Apple claims the terms Nokia have been offering are different from those they offer to other phone makers. Other 'phone makers pay a fee, Nokia wants Apple to 'pay' by handing over some of their patents. This (if true) is illegal, and the basis of Apple's complaint, because it's not the same deal being offered to others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because Apple claims the terms Nokia have been offering are different from those they offer to other phone makers .
Other 'phone makers pay a fee , Nokia wants Apple to 'pay ' by handing over some of their patents .
This ( if true ) is illegal , and the basis of Apple 's complaint , because it 's not the same deal being offered to others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because Apple claims the terms Nokia have been offering are different from those they offer to other phone makers.
Other 'phone makers pay a fee, Nokia wants Apple to 'pay' by handing over some of their patents.
This (if true) is illegal, and the basis of Apple's complaint, because it's not the same deal being offered to others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796510</id>
	<title>What is wrong with patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263758700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary is a good example of a situation when patents really shine at what they are:
a handbrake on innovation. Consumer has nothing to gain if a capable competitor is excluded from the
marketplace like that. Leading companies will invest in RnD, patents or not, mostly just to
keep up with the state of the art, but also because when (by chance), their engineers invent something
truly novel and useful, they will have weeks, months, or may be even years before competitors
reverse-engineer their product and learn how to build it cheaper. It is clearly not worth for the public to
pay the patent enforcement and monopoly taxes unless the patent law strongly boosts the rate of
innovation (and even then, is there really a point?).

</p><p>And we have no evidence whatsoever that the patent system of any kind increases the rate of
innovation (the technological leap of the last 400 years is probably mostly due to the fossil fuels, and
we are in for another boost, due to the Internet, the holy Grail of communication). We  but we have clear
examples of monopolistic behaviors, where the cost to consumer
can be directly calculated, like in every case when a cheaper competing product is barred from
the market.

</p><p>The reasonable thing to do would be to start decreasing the patent term, while measuring how
it affects the rate of innovation. I would not be surprised to see that it doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is a good example of a situation when patents really shine at what they are : a handbrake on innovation .
Consumer has nothing to gain if a capable competitor is excluded from the marketplace like that .
Leading companies will invest in RnD , patents or not , mostly just to keep up with the state of the art , but also because when ( by chance ) , their engineers invent something truly novel and useful , they will have weeks , months , or may be even years before competitors reverse-engineer their product and learn how to build it cheaper .
It is clearly not worth for the public to pay the patent enforcement and monopoly taxes unless the patent law strongly boosts the rate of innovation ( and even then , is there really a point ? ) .
And we have no evidence whatsoever that the patent system of any kind increases the rate of innovation ( the technological leap of the last 400 years is probably mostly due to the fossil fuels , and we are in for another boost , due to the Internet , the holy Grail of communication ) .
We but we have clear examples of monopolistic behaviors , where the cost to consumer can be directly calculated , like in every case when a cheaper competing product is barred from the market .
The reasonable thing to do would be to start decreasing the patent term , while measuring how it affects the rate of innovation .
I would not be surprised to see that it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is a good example of a situation when patents really shine at what they are:
a handbrake on innovation.
Consumer has nothing to gain if a capable competitor is excluded from the
marketplace like that.
Leading companies will invest in RnD, patents or not, mostly just to
keep up with the state of the art, but also because when (by chance), their engineers invent something
truly novel and useful, they will have weeks, months, or may be even years before competitors
reverse-engineer their product and learn how to build it cheaper.
It is clearly not worth for the public to
pay the patent enforcement and monopoly taxes unless the patent law strongly boosts the rate of
innovation (and even then, is there really a point?).
And we have no evidence whatsoever that the patent system of any kind increases the rate of
innovation (the technological leap of the last 400 years is probably mostly due to the fossil fuels, and
we are in for another boost, due to the Internet, the holy Grail of communication).
We  but we have clear
examples of monopolistic behaviors, where the cost to consumer
can be directly calculated, like in every case when a cheaper competing product is barred from
the market.
The reasonable thing to do would be to start decreasing the patent term, while measuring how
it affects the rate of innovation.
I would not be surprised to see that it doesn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798404</id>
	<title>Here is how it will end:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263744480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> HEY APPLE<br>
&nbsp; INSULT<br>
&nbsp; LAWSUIT<br>
&nbsp; COUNTER-LAWSUIT<br>
&nbsp; QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE<br>
&nbsp; SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE FUCK UP<br>
&nbsp; NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM<br>
&nbsp; LAWSUIT<br>
&nbsp; ADDON LAWSUIT<br>
&nbsp; COUNTER-LAWSUIT<br>
&nbsp; COUNTER-COUNTER LAWSUIT<br>
&nbsp; NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON<br>
&nbsp; RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES<br>
&nbsp; WORDS OF PRAISE FOR BRIBERY<br>
&nbsp; ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HEY APPLE   INSULT   LAWSUIT   COUNTER-LAWSUIT   QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE   SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE FUCK UP   NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM   LAWSUIT   ADDON LAWSUIT   COUNTER-LAWSUIT   COUNTER-COUNTER LAWSUIT   NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON   RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES   WORDS OF PRAISE FOR BRIBERY   ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS</tokentext>
<sentencetext> HEY APPLE
  INSULT
  LAWSUIT
  COUNTER-LAWSUIT
  QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
  SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE FUCK UP
  NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM
  LAWSUIT
  ADDON LAWSUIT
  COUNTER-LAWSUIT
  COUNTER-COUNTER LAWSUIT
  NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
  RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES
  WORDS OF PRAISE FOR BRIBERY
  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30800626</id>
	<title>I have a solution</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1263719280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple and Nokia should just get a hotel room and "argue" it all out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple and Nokia should just get a hotel room and " argue " it all out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple and Nokia should just get a hotel room and "argue" it all out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797870</id>
	<title>Re:Worthless patents</title>
	<author>CptPicard</author>
	<datestamp>1263739800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> These patents are even more trivial than GSM, 3G and Wi-Fi</p></div></blockquote><p>Care to explain how these patents are trivial? I would say that they are the most central patents you can imagine in the field...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These patents are even more trivial than GSM , 3G and Wi-FiCare to explain how these patents are trivial ?
I would say that they are the most central patents you can imagine in the field.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> These patents are even more trivial than GSM, 3G and Wi-FiCare to explain how these patents are trivial?
I would say that they are the most central patents you can imagine in the field...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30803494</id>
	<title>Re:Ban Nokia from the USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263740160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note that the lawsuit is against *importing* iPhones into the USA. USA doesn't have the know-how to make its own phones so they are manufactured in more advanced foreign countries<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that the lawsuit is against * importing * iPhones into the USA .
USA does n't have the know-how to make its own phones so they are manufactured in more advanced foreign countries : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that the lawsuit is against *importing* iPhones into the USA.
USA doesn't have the know-how to make its own phones so they are manufactured in more advanced foreign countries :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350</id>
	<title>Sue first, ask questions later</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263669360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it really cheaper to sue for peace?  I mean, can't the legal teams for both companies see this down the road and come to some sort of mutual agreement <i>in advance</i>?  It'd sure save a lot of time and money, not to mentioning freeing the courts a bit.  Why is it acceptable policy to sue instead of discussing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really cheaper to sue for peace ?
I mean , ca n't the legal teams for both companies see this down the road and come to some sort of mutual agreement in advance ?
It 'd sure save a lot of time and money , not to mentioning freeing the courts a bit .
Why is it acceptable policy to sue instead of discussing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really cheaper to sue for peace?
I mean, can't the legal teams for both companies see this down the road and come to some sort of mutual agreement in advance?
It'd sure save a lot of time and money, not to mentioning freeing the courts a bit.
Why is it acceptable policy to sue instead of discussing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796364</id>
	<title>Re:Sue first, ask questions later</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1263669600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They need to just fucking cross license the patents like they always end up doing. Stop feeding the animals (Lawyers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to just fucking cross license the patents like they always end up doing .
Stop feeding the animals ( Lawyers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to just fucking cross license the patents like they always end up doing.
Stop feeding the animals (Lawyers).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797160</id>
	<title>Re:are you kidding?</title>
	<author>Splab</author>
	<datestamp>1263728580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except you can't just buy stocks, someone has to be willing to sell them - and if word got out that Apple was trying to buy out Nokia to get rid of the patent trouble Nokia shares would explode - and Apple would be in big problems with international trade organizations since that move would imply they think they are in trouble.</p><p>If Apple where to lose patent cases in US and/or EU they might have money right now, but that would go bad real fast.</p><p>Disclaimer: I'm a HTC fanboi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except you ca n't just buy stocks , someone has to be willing to sell them - and if word got out that Apple was trying to buy out Nokia to get rid of the patent trouble Nokia shares would explode - and Apple would be in big problems with international trade organizations since that move would imply they think they are in trouble.If Apple where to lose patent cases in US and/or EU they might have money right now , but that would go bad real fast.Disclaimer : I 'm a HTC fanboi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except you can't just buy stocks, someone has to be willing to sell them - and if word got out that Apple was trying to buy out Nokia to get rid of the patent trouble Nokia shares would explode - and Apple would be in big problems with international trade organizations since that move would imply they think they are in trouble.If Apple where to lose patent cases in US and/or EU they might have money right now, but that would go bad real fast.Disclaimer: I'm a HTC fanboi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30800880</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1263720960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought Apple $1,500 worth of shares at around $18 in 1999.  I rode it up, watched it split once, and when the price hit $120 I dumped it.  Figured I had made about 6x's my investment, I had held the stock for over 5 years at that point so lower capital gains, and so it was time to take some profits.  That's how I made some money in Apple stock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought Apple $ 1,500 worth of shares at around $ 18 in 1999 .
I rode it up , watched it split once , and when the price hit $ 120 I dumped it .
Figured I had made about 6x 's my investment , I had held the stock for over 5 years at that point so lower capital gains , and so it was time to take some profits .
That 's how I made some money in Apple stock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought Apple $1,500 worth of shares at around $18 in 1999.
I rode it up, watched it split once, and when the price hit $120 I dumped it.
Figured I had made about 6x's my investment, I had held the stock for over 5 years at that point so lower capital gains, and so it was time to take some profits.
That's how I made some money in Apple stock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263760560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I find very strange about this whole business is that this is two stories in a row on slashdot where I've seen people say how Nokia is actually the bigger company, and yet Nokia's market cap is less than one-third of Apple's. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Is it something as simple as Nokia shareholders trying to prop up the stock price, or is it idiots who looked at the companies a decade ago -- or who heard some line on some idiotic finance show about Apple being smaller -- and they stick to that idea regardless of the fact that it's completely untrue? Really, at this point I have no shares in either company, and am just curious why this delusion about Nokia persists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find very strange about this whole business is that this is two stories in a row on slashdot where I 've seen people say how Nokia is actually the bigger company , and yet Nokia 's market cap is less than one-third of Apple 's .
Does anyone have an explanation for this ?
Is it something as simple as Nokia shareholders trying to prop up the stock price , or is it idiots who looked at the companies a decade ago -- or who heard some line on some idiotic finance show about Apple being smaller -- and they stick to that idea regardless of the fact that it 's completely untrue ?
Really , at this point I have no shares in either company , and am just curious why this delusion about Nokia persists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find very strange about this whole business is that this is two stories in a row on slashdot where I've seen people say how Nokia is actually the bigger company, and yet Nokia's market cap is less than one-third of Apple's.
Does anyone have an explanation for this?
Is it something as simple as Nokia shareholders trying to prop up the stock price, or is it idiots who looked at the companies a decade ago -- or who heard some line on some idiotic finance show about Apple being smaller -- and they stick to that idea regardless of the fact that it's completely untrue?
Really, at this point I have no shares in either company, and am just curious why this delusion about Nokia persists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30800694</id>
	<title>Re:Ban Nokia from the USA</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1263719700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US has far more to lose in a trade war than Finland.  Furthermore, almost none of the technologies that make the iPhone what it is were invented or created by Apple in the first place; Apple liberally "borrowed" the best ideas from other companies (Palm, Xerox, Psion, Nokia, etc.), tried to avoid stepping on other people's patents, and, well, we'll have to see how it works out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US has far more to lose in a trade war than Finland .
Furthermore , almost none of the technologies that make the iPhone what it is were invented or created by Apple in the first place ; Apple liberally " borrowed " the best ideas from other companies ( Palm , Xerox , Psion , Nokia , etc .
) , tried to avoid stepping on other people 's patents , and , well , we 'll have to see how it works out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US has far more to lose in a trade war than Finland.
Furthermore, almost none of the technologies that make the iPhone what it is were invented or created by Apple in the first place; Apple liberally "borrowed" the best ideas from other companies (Palm, Xerox, Psion, Nokia, etc.
), tried to avoid stepping on other people's patents, and, well, we'll have to see how it works out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798392</id>
	<title>Ban Nokia from the USA</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1263744360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia is not an American company. Apple is.  I'm sick of foreign companies stomping all over the USA.  Kick Nokia out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia is not an American company .
Apple is .
I 'm sick of foreign companies stomping all over the USA .
Kick Nokia out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia is not an American company.
Apple is.
I'm sick of foreign companies stomping all over the USA.
Kick Nokia out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797408</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263732300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nokia has more employees, but Apple makes more money. Nokia sells tons more phones, but Apple has a hell of a lot of other lines. Overall, Apple looks to be in better shape.  It's fairly hard to compare companies using a general metric like size since there are so many factors.  Seems like Apple is healthier in general, although Nokia is "bigger" for whatever that means.</p></div><p>It seems that way because Nokia is a research and production company and Apple is a marketing company. Nokia invent real stuff, they then have their own factories produce that stuff. Apple cludge together preexisting parts, let somebody else make the product and then use most of its resources on marketing. Marketing is cheap and has a high immidiate yield, but it has only a value as long as people belive in it. Factories, research and know-how has higher costs and less yield but are more solid assets than goodwill in the long run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has more employees , but Apple makes more money .
Nokia sells tons more phones , but Apple has a hell of a lot of other lines .
Overall , Apple looks to be in better shape .
It 's fairly hard to compare companies using a general metric like size since there are so many factors .
Seems like Apple is healthier in general , although Nokia is " bigger " for whatever that means.It seems that way because Nokia is a research and production company and Apple is a marketing company .
Nokia invent real stuff , they then have their own factories produce that stuff .
Apple cludge together preexisting parts , let somebody else make the product and then use most of its resources on marketing .
Marketing is cheap and has a high immidiate yield , but it has only a value as long as people belive in it .
Factories , research and know-how has higher costs and less yield but are more solid assets than goodwill in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has more employees, but Apple makes more money.
Nokia sells tons more phones, but Apple has a hell of a lot of other lines.
Overall, Apple looks to be in better shape.
It's fairly hard to compare companies using a general metric like size since there are so many factors.
Seems like Apple is healthier in general, although Nokia is "bigger" for whatever that means.It seems that way because Nokia is a research and production company and Apple is a marketing company.
Nokia invent real stuff, they then have their own factories produce that stuff.
Apple cludge together preexisting parts, let somebody else make the product and then use most of its resources on marketing.
Marketing is cheap and has a high immidiate yield, but it has only a value as long as people belive in it.
Factories, research and know-how has higher costs and less yield but are more solid assets than goodwill in the long run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30800870</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot anti-Apple bias</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1263720780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Nokia refused to offer Apple their standard patent licensing deals that they gave to everybody else in the industry, and wants to cross-license some of Apple's GUI patents or charge them three times as much. Naturally, Apple didn't go for the deal.</i></p><p>Oh, poor poor Apple.  Look at what the iPhone consists of:</p><p>-- PDA functionality -- pioneered by Psion, Xerox, and Palm<br>-- Mach kernel -- CMU<br>-- Objective-C, Cocoa -- derived from Xerox Smalltalk and Stepstone<br>-- App Store -- Danger (now Google)<br>-- multitouch -- various university labs, but Apple has tried to patent it and buy up companies<br>-- desktop sync -- Palm and Xerox<br>-- animated GUIs -- various university labs<br>-- MP3 player -- Kramer, Eiger, Diamond<br>-- music store -- IUMA, Napster, etc.<br>-- GPS, camera phone -- other phone manufacturers</p><p>Frankly, why does Apple deserve any kind of rights to this market?  What have they contributed other than a lot of marketing and fluff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia refused to offer Apple their standard patent licensing deals that they gave to everybody else in the industry , and wants to cross-license some of Apple 's GUI patents or charge them three times as much .
Naturally , Apple did n't go for the deal.Oh , poor poor Apple .
Look at what the iPhone consists of : -- PDA functionality -- pioneered by Psion , Xerox , and Palm-- Mach kernel -- CMU-- Objective-C , Cocoa -- derived from Xerox Smalltalk and Stepstone-- App Store -- Danger ( now Google ) -- multitouch -- various university labs , but Apple has tried to patent it and buy up companies-- desktop sync -- Palm and Xerox-- animated GUIs -- various university labs-- MP3 player -- Kramer , Eiger , Diamond-- music store -- IUMA , Napster , etc.-- GPS , camera phone -- other phone manufacturersFrankly , why does Apple deserve any kind of rights to this market ?
What have they contributed other than a lot of marketing and fluff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia refused to offer Apple their standard patent licensing deals that they gave to everybody else in the industry, and wants to cross-license some of Apple's GUI patents or charge them three times as much.
Naturally, Apple didn't go for the deal.Oh, poor poor Apple.
Look at what the iPhone consists of:-- PDA functionality -- pioneered by Psion, Xerox, and Palm-- Mach kernel -- CMU-- Objective-C, Cocoa -- derived from Xerox Smalltalk and Stepstone-- App Store -- Danger (now Google)-- multitouch -- various university labs, but Apple has tried to patent it and buy up companies-- desktop sync -- Palm and Xerox-- animated GUIs -- various university labs-- MP3 player -- Kramer, Eiger, Diamond-- music store -- IUMA, Napster, etc.-- GPS, camera phone -- other phone manufacturersFrankly, why does Apple deserve any kind of rights to this market?
What have they contributed other than a lot of marketing and fluff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30802844</id>
	<title>Re:Arrogant Apple Strikes Again!</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263734460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A special threat as far as allowing one company to ignore the kinds of agreements Nokia has with everybody else in the industry. As far as products go Apple doesn't even want to compete with most of Nokia offers, never mind your inaccurate perception of them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A special threat as far as allowing one company to ignore the kinds of agreements Nokia has with everybody else in the industry .
As far as products go Apple does n't even want to compete with most of Nokia offers , never mind your inaccurate perception of them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A special threat as far as allowing one company to ignore the kinds of agreements Nokia has with everybody else in the industry.
As far as products go Apple doesn't even want to compete with most of Nokia offers, never mind your inaccurate perception of them...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30805734</id>
	<title>First hand legal information</title>
	<author>Krohon</author>
	<datestamp>1263809100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is a link to the real Apple case against Nokia (AAPL-NOKCountersuit): <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19291155/?key=NWQ3MTg2ODAt&amp;pass=ZTY0Yy00OWE4" title="docstoc.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19291155/?key=NWQ3MTg2ODAt&amp;pass=ZTY0Yy00OWE4</a> [docstoc.com]

Of course it is biased towards Apple point of view. Also, the text of the Nokia's suit is needed to fully understand it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a link to the real Apple case against Nokia ( AAPL-NOKCountersuit ) : http : //www.docstoc.com/docs/19291155/ ? key = NWQ3MTg2ODAt&amp;pass = ZTY0Yy00OWE4 [ docstoc.com ] Of course it is biased towards Apple point of view .
Also , the text of the Nokia 's suit is needed to fully understand it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a link to the real Apple case against Nokia (AAPL-NOKCountersuit): http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19291155/?key=NWQ3MTg2ODAt&amp;pass=ZTY0Yy00OWE4 [docstoc.com]

Of course it is biased towards Apple point of view.
Also, the text of the Nokia's suit is needed to fully understand it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796932</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>Kumiorava</author>
	<datestamp>1263723900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Biggest reason why Apple has so much money to throw around is the fact that Apple doesn't pay any dividends and lets the money sit on low interest accounts. Nokia has been a good dividend payer for years and will do so, as any mature company should. Right now market cap for Apple is huge, but it's based on future prospects with no dividend policy. I really don't know how the investors are going to get their money out of Apple. Are Apple investors waiting for LBO or liquidation? I mean regular buy and hold investor should get money back somehow from a successful company, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Biggest reason why Apple has so much money to throw around is the fact that Apple does n't pay any dividends and lets the money sit on low interest accounts .
Nokia has been a good dividend payer for years and will do so , as any mature company should .
Right now market cap for Apple is huge , but it 's based on future prospects with no dividend policy .
I really do n't know how the investors are going to get their money out of Apple .
Are Apple investors waiting for LBO or liquidation ?
I mean regular buy and hold investor should get money back somehow from a successful company , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biggest reason why Apple has so much money to throw around is the fact that Apple doesn't pay any dividends and lets the money sit on low interest accounts.
Nokia has been a good dividend payer for years and will do so, as any mature company should.
Right now market cap for Apple is huge, but it's based on future prospects with no dividend policy.
I really don't know how the investors are going to get their money out of Apple.
Are Apple investors waiting for LBO or liquidation?
I mean regular buy and hold investor should get money back somehow from a successful company, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263719880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia has more employees, but Apple makes more money. Nokia sells tons more phones, but Apple has a hell of a lot of other lines. Overall, Apple looks to be in better shape.  It's fairly hard to compare companies using a general metric like size since there are so many factors.  Seems like Apple is healthier in general, although Nokia is "bigger" for whatever that means.</p><p>Looking at valuation, Apple could probably buy Nokia if they decided to, but that's not in the least bit likely. Apple's not big into the low end.</p><p>So far as the story goes, obviously this is just negotiation tactics.</p><p>What surprises me is that Apple is responsible for licensing the radio patents.  It's not like they build the radios, they just buy them and integrate them. Seems like Broadcom or whoever they use as the radio vendor would have to handle that. I don't know the details of the case, though, so I'm really just talking out my ass here.</p><p>Overall I'd say they should suck it up and license the damn things, even though Nokia wants those precious multitouch patents. It's pretty clear Apple is infringing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has more employees , but Apple makes more money .
Nokia sells tons more phones , but Apple has a hell of a lot of other lines .
Overall , Apple looks to be in better shape .
It 's fairly hard to compare companies using a general metric like size since there are so many factors .
Seems like Apple is healthier in general , although Nokia is " bigger " for whatever that means.Looking at valuation , Apple could probably buy Nokia if they decided to , but that 's not in the least bit likely .
Apple 's not big into the low end.So far as the story goes , obviously this is just negotiation tactics.What surprises me is that Apple is responsible for licensing the radio patents .
It 's not like they build the radios , they just buy them and integrate them .
Seems like Broadcom or whoever they use as the radio vendor would have to handle that .
I do n't know the details of the case , though , so I 'm really just talking out my ass here.Overall I 'd say they should suck it up and license the damn things , even though Nokia wants those precious multitouch patents .
It 's pretty clear Apple is infringing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has more employees, but Apple makes more money.
Nokia sells tons more phones, but Apple has a hell of a lot of other lines.
Overall, Apple looks to be in better shape.
It's fairly hard to compare companies using a general metric like size since there are so many factors.
Seems like Apple is healthier in general, although Nokia is "bigger" for whatever that means.Looking at valuation, Apple could probably buy Nokia if they decided to, but that's not in the least bit likely.
Apple's not big into the low end.So far as the story goes, obviously this is just negotiation tactics.What surprises me is that Apple is responsible for licensing the radio patents.
It's not like they build the radios, they just buy them and integrate them.
Seems like Broadcom or whoever they use as the radio vendor would have to handle that.
I don't know the details of the case, though, so I'm really just talking out my ass here.Overall I'd say they should suck it up and license the damn things, even though Nokia wants those precious multitouch patents.
It's pretty clear Apple is infringing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797392</id>
	<title>AppleNokia!</title>
	<author>ultramarweeni</author>
	<datestamp>1263732120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'd help a lot both companies and their shareholders if they just merged their smartphone businesses instead of this stupid vendetta. Just think of an AppleNokia smartphone with the sleekness and UI of an iPhone 3GS and customability, Linux and the keypad from N900.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd help a lot both companies and their shareholders if they just merged their smartphone businesses instead of this stupid vendetta .
Just think of an AppleNokia smartphone with the sleekness and UI of an iPhone 3GS and customability , Linux and the keypad from N900 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd help a lot both companies and their shareholders if they just merged their smartphone businesses instead of this stupid vendetta.
Just think of an AppleNokia smartphone with the sleekness and UI of an iPhone 3GS and customability, Linux and the keypad from N900.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796386</id>
	<title>Re:Sue first, ask questions later</title>
	<author>Hungus</author>
	<datestamp>1263669900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have been "discussing" this for some time now, if you had not noticed.</p><p>Further, Apple and Nokia are not tying up normal or federal courts with this issue: The filings are with the ITC (International Trade Commission).</p><p><a href="http://www.usitc.gov/press\_room/about\_usitc.htm" title="usitc.gov" rel="nofollow">The mission of the Commission is to (1) administer U.S. trade remedy laws within its mandate in a fair and objective manner; (2) provide the President, USTR, and Congress with independent analysis, information, and support on matters of tariffs, international trade, and U.S. competitiveness; and (3) maintain the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS).</a> [usitc.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have been " discussing " this for some time now , if you had not noticed.Further , Apple and Nokia are not tying up normal or federal courts with this issue : The filings are with the ITC ( International Trade Commission ) .The mission of the Commission is to ( 1 ) administer U.S. trade remedy laws within its mandate in a fair and objective manner ; ( 2 ) provide the President , USTR , and Congress with independent analysis , information , and support on matters of tariffs , international trade , and U.S. competitiveness ; and ( 3 ) maintain the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ( HTS ) .
[ usitc.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have been "discussing" this for some time now, if you had not noticed.Further, Apple and Nokia are not tying up normal or federal courts with this issue: The filings are with the ITC (International Trade Commission).The mission of the Commission is to (1) administer U.S. trade remedy laws within its mandate in a fair and objective manner; (2) provide the President, USTR, and Congress with independent analysis, information, and support on matters of tariffs, international trade, and U.S. competitiveness; and (3) maintain the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS).
[usitc.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798466</id>
	<title>Slashdot anti-Apple bias</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263744900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to get modded down for saying this, but screw it!   I've got mod points to burn.</p><p>Very few Slashdotters have mentioned this, but Apple *wants* to license Nokia's patents, but under reasonable and anti-discriminatory terms.   Nokia refused to offer Apple their standard patent licensing deals that they gave to everybody else in the industry, and wants to cross-license some of Apple's GUI patents or charge them three times as much.  Naturally, Apple didn't go for the deal.</p><p>If Nokia offered to license its patents under non-discriminatory terms according to the ITC, then there would be no issue.</p><p>Nokia is desperate because of the market share they're losing in the cell phone business, at least in North America (I know they're still strong in Europe).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to get modded down for saying this , but screw it !
I 've got mod points to burn.Very few Slashdotters have mentioned this , but Apple * wants * to license Nokia 's patents , but under reasonable and anti-discriminatory terms .
Nokia refused to offer Apple their standard patent licensing deals that they gave to everybody else in the industry , and wants to cross-license some of Apple 's GUI patents or charge them three times as much .
Naturally , Apple did n't go for the deal.If Nokia offered to license its patents under non-discriminatory terms according to the ITC , then there would be no issue.Nokia is desperate because of the market share they 're losing in the cell phone business , at least in North America ( I know they 're still strong in Europe ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to get modded down for saying this, but screw it!
I've got mod points to burn.Very few Slashdotters have mentioned this, but Apple *wants* to license Nokia's patents, but under reasonable and anti-discriminatory terms.
Nokia refused to offer Apple their standard patent licensing deals that they gave to everybody else in the industry, and wants to cross-license some of Apple's GUI patents or charge them three times as much.
Naturally, Apple didn't go for the deal.If Nokia offered to license its patents under non-discriminatory terms according to the ITC, then there would be no issue.Nokia is desperate because of the market share they're losing in the cell phone business, at least in North America (I know they're still strong in Europe).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796576</id>
	<title>Re:What is wrong with patents</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1263759960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must not understand where all the radios in your cell phones were designed.  The fact that most companies don't have to think about designing their own radios frees them up to do other things (a la the iPhone).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must not understand where all the radios in your cell phones were designed .
The fact that most companies do n't have to think about designing their own radios frees them up to do other things ( a la the iPhone ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must not understand where all the radios in your cell phones were designed.
The fact that most companies don't have to think about designing their own radios frees them up to do other things (a la the iPhone).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798442</id>
	<title>"Come to an agreement"</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1263744780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which will involve soaking the customer to pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which will involve soaking the customer to pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which will involve soaking the customer to pay for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798522</id>
	<title>Re:Arrogant Apple Strikes Again!</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1263745320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree that they should take it to the EU, not that I usually support the EU's special brand of crazy that gives them liscence to print money from other peoples accounts (Intel, Microsoft) but it would be fantastic to finally see Apple being held to the same standard as everyone else.</p></div><p>Fining companies for harming the market and consumers is the exact opposite of 'crazy'.  Such fines have long-term benefits for everybody big and small alike.<br> <br>

Price fixing, collusion, anti-competitive practises.  They are bad.  They hurt companies.  They hurt consumers in both choice and price.<br> <br>

And if you're alluding to the notion that the EU only fines non EU-based companies: the meme is false.  Dozens of other EU companies have been fined on precisely the same grounds.  You never heard of it because as far as the US media is concerned, things that don't affect the USA don't exist.  That goes for Slashdot too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that they should take it to the EU , not that I usually support the EU 's special brand of crazy that gives them liscence to print money from other peoples accounts ( Intel , Microsoft ) but it would be fantastic to finally see Apple being held to the same standard as everyone else.Fining companies for harming the market and consumers is the exact opposite of 'crazy' .
Such fines have long-term benefits for everybody big and small alike .
Price fixing , collusion , anti-competitive practises .
They are bad .
They hurt companies .
They hurt consumers in both choice and price .
And if you 're alluding to the notion that the EU only fines non EU-based companies : the meme is false .
Dozens of other EU companies have been fined on precisely the same grounds .
You never heard of it because as far as the US media is concerned , things that do n't affect the USA do n't exist .
That goes for Slashdot too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that they should take it to the EU, not that I usually support the EU's special brand of crazy that gives them liscence to print money from other peoples accounts (Intel, Microsoft) but it would be fantastic to finally see Apple being held to the same standard as everyone else.Fining companies for harming the market and consumers is the exact opposite of 'crazy'.
Such fines have long-term benefits for everybody big and small alike.
Price fixing, collusion, anti-competitive practises.
They are bad.
They hurt companies.
They hurt consumers in both choice and price.
And if you're alluding to the notion that the EU only fines non EU-based companies: the meme is false.
Dozens of other EU companies have been fined on precisely the same grounds.
You never heard of it because as far as the US media is concerned, things that don't affect the USA don't exist.
That goes for Slashdot too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30817630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30803494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30800694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30799350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30804154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30799134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30799214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30802844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30817570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30800880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30800870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_069258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30802844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30800870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30817570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30817630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796746
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796932
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30799214
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30799350
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30800880
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796920
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796876
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797408
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30799134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30803494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30804154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30800694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30797806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30796908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_069258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_069258.30798964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
