<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_17_1915249</id>
	<title>Is Gawker's "Apple Tablet Scavenger Hunt" Illegal?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263756720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Not too surprisingly, Apple was not amused by Valleywag's announcement of an <a href="http://gawker.com/5447390/announcing-valleywags-apple-tablet-scavenger-hunt-win-up-to-100000">Apple Tablet Scavenger Hunt</a>, which offered cash prizes ranging from 10K-100K for info about the much-anticipated new Apple device. The promo prompted a <a href="http://valleywag.gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-prize-in-our-tablet-scavenger-hunt">threatening cease-and-desist letter from Apple's lawyers</a>, which Valleywag deemed the most concrete evidence yet that there may indeed be a tablet in the works. But is the Scavenger Hunt really illegal, as the attorney claimed? The jury's still out, but <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2241692/pagenum/all">Slate concludes Apple's got a pretty good case</a>, although it notes that Valleywag's unconventional Scavenger Hunt 'stunt' may not really be all that different from 'reporting' practiced by mainstream publications like the WSJ."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Not too surprisingly , Apple was not amused by Valleywag 's announcement of an Apple Tablet Scavenger Hunt , which offered cash prizes ranging from 10K-100K for info about the much-anticipated new Apple device .
The promo prompted a threatening cease-and-desist letter from Apple 's lawyers , which Valleywag deemed the most concrete evidence yet that there may indeed be a tablet in the works .
But is the Scavenger Hunt really illegal , as the attorney claimed ?
The jury 's still out , but Slate concludes Apple 's got a pretty good case , although it notes that Valleywag 's unconventional Scavenger Hunt 'stunt ' may not really be all that different from 'reporting ' practiced by mainstream publications like the WSJ .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Not too surprisingly, Apple was not amused by Valleywag's announcement of an Apple Tablet Scavenger Hunt, which offered cash prizes ranging from 10K-100K for info about the much-anticipated new Apple device.
The promo prompted a threatening cease-and-desist letter from Apple's lawyers, which Valleywag deemed the most concrete evidence yet that there may indeed be a tablet in the works.
But is the Scavenger Hunt really illegal, as the attorney claimed?
The jury's still out, but Slate concludes Apple's got a pretty good case, although it notes that Valleywag's unconventional Scavenger Hunt 'stunt' may not really be all that different from 'reporting' practiced by mainstream publications like the WSJ.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800606</id>
	<title>Re:Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal?</title>
	<author>txoof</author>
	<datestamp>1263719220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't the onus to follow the law fall on the person providing the information?  If a person were to say break into Apple and snap pictures and then provide the pictures to Gawker, wouldn't they be the party to prosecuted, not Gawker?  From reading the <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2241692/pagenum/all" title="slate.com">Slate article </a> [slate.com] it appears that Gawker might be protected if they are not actively soliciting people to break the law and reveal trade secrets.  If an individual shows up at their office with the product and assures the editors that they have the right to share this, anything published is fair game.  If, on the other hand it can be shown that Gawker knows that the product was obtained illegally or that the person sharing the product is breaking the law, they probably don't have a leg to stand on.</p><p>It is pretty obvious that Apple has something brewing by their instantaneous lawyering up though.  I am getting a little sick of the play by play speculation however.  I'm interested in new gadgets, but I'll read about 'em a few months after they're released so I can get the good, bad and ugly of it all rather than the Jobsesque hype.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't the onus to follow the law fall on the person providing the information ?
If a person were to say break into Apple and snap pictures and then provide the pictures to Gawker , would n't they be the party to prosecuted , not Gawker ?
From reading the Slate article [ slate.com ] it appears that Gawker might be protected if they are not actively soliciting people to break the law and reveal trade secrets .
If an individual shows up at their office with the product and assures the editors that they have the right to share this , anything published is fair game .
If , on the other hand it can be shown that Gawker knows that the product was obtained illegally or that the person sharing the product is breaking the law , they probably do n't have a leg to stand on.It is pretty obvious that Apple has something brewing by their instantaneous lawyering up though .
I am getting a little sick of the play by play speculation however .
I 'm interested in new gadgets , but I 'll read about 'em a few months after they 're released so I can get the good , bad and ugly of it all rather than the Jobsesque hype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't the onus to follow the law fall on the person providing the information?
If a person were to say break into Apple and snap pictures and then provide the pictures to Gawker, wouldn't they be the party to prosecuted, not Gawker?
From reading the Slate article  [slate.com] it appears that Gawker might be protected if they are not actively soliciting people to break the law and reveal trade secrets.
If an individual shows up at their office with the product and assures the editors that they have the right to share this, anything published is fair game.
If, on the other hand it can be shown that Gawker knows that the product was obtained illegally or that the person sharing the product is breaking the law, they probably don't have a leg to stand on.It is pretty obvious that Apple has something brewing by their instantaneous lawyering up though.
I am getting a little sick of the play by play speculation however.
I'm interested in new gadgets, but I'll read about 'em a few months after they're released so I can get the good, bad and ugly of it all rather than the Jobsesque hype.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800368</id>
	<title>Who Cares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263760500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one am sick of hearing about the apple tablet... either come out with it or dont but stop the crap</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one am sick of hearing about the apple tablet... either come out with it or dont but stop the crap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one am sick of hearing about the apple tablet... either come out with it or dont but stop the crap</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802654</id>
	<title>Re:What NDA?</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1263733020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If this scavenger hunt is illegal, it would also be illegal for me to offer $10k to anyone who brings me the top-secret Microsoft Phone.</i></p><p>The phone itself? That would probably be theft...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this scavenger hunt is illegal , it would also be illegal for me to offer $ 10k to anyone who brings me the top-secret Microsoft Phone.The phone itself ?
That would probably be theft.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this scavenger hunt is illegal, it would also be illegal for me to offer $10k to anyone who brings me the top-secret Microsoft Phone.The phone itself?
That would probably be theft...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800590</id>
	<title>Re:It's in the wording, I think....</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1263719160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, if they're smart they'd have just put a checkbox on the submission form:</p><p>"By checking this box you declare that you are not barred by law from sharing this photo."</p><p>If they later get complaints to the contrary they can of course take the photo back down (after taking the proper time to investigate the complaint and ensure that it is legitimate).  After all, how could they tell that the photo was posted illegally?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , if they 're smart they 'd have just put a checkbox on the submission form : " By checking this box you declare that you are not barred by law from sharing this photo .
" If they later get complaints to the contrary they can of course take the photo back down ( after taking the proper time to investigate the complaint and ensure that it is legitimate ) .
After all , how could they tell that the photo was posted illegally ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, if they're smart they'd have just put a checkbox on the submission form:"By checking this box you declare that you are not barred by law from sharing this photo.
"If they later get complaints to the contrary they can of course take the photo back down (after taking the proper time to investigate the complaint and ensure that it is legitimate).
After all, how could they tell that the photo was posted illegally?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800950</id>
	<title>Re:Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal?</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1263721320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>offering to pay someone to do something illegal is, in itself, illegal.</i></p><p>I think something has been overlooked here...  the scavenger hunt does NOT suggest doing anything illegal.  It actually has legitimate basis if you look at it from another admittedly fairly unlikely angle.</p><p>Apple's had enough experience in the NDA arena that I think we can expect nearly flawless coverage.  But there remains the possibility that someone, somewhere, was allowed access within cameraphone range of an iSlate without being NDA'd.</p><p>There's also the shaky ground of coming into possession of an actual unit somewhere like ebay where it was originally illegally obtained, and has passed through several hands and now can only go on the grounds of "it's <i>likely</i> stolen", not based on the actual circumstances they got it under, but rather in the sheer unlikelyhood that anyone ever <i>had</i> a legal right of sale to produce an available unit on the market.</p><p>But we're still (for the most part anyway...) in an "innocent until proven guilty" legal system here.  There are a few completely legal ways ot obtain an iSlate, and quite a few legal ways to obtain pictures etc. (though these are all still fairly improbable to have occurred)</p><p>Heck, one of the beta testers could have left one sitting on the roof of his car when he pulled out of the parking lot, and someone found it laying on the side of the road somewhere.  There would be absolutely nothing illegal about the finder selling that to these guys.</p><p>One of the beta testers may have taken the unit home to play with, and ordered pizza that night.  The pizza delivery guy may have had a cameraphone and a sharp eye when he delivered and was told to "just set it in there on the table" and noticed the empty iSlate packaging box and got a few shots of the packaging materials.</p><p>You can't just assume for certain that things like this can only be obtained illegally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>offering to pay someone to do something illegal is , in itself , illegal.I think something has been overlooked here... the scavenger hunt does NOT suggest doing anything illegal .
It actually has legitimate basis if you look at it from another admittedly fairly unlikely angle.Apple 's had enough experience in the NDA arena that I think we can expect nearly flawless coverage .
But there remains the possibility that someone , somewhere , was allowed access within cameraphone range of an iSlate without being NDA 'd.There 's also the shaky ground of coming into possession of an actual unit somewhere like ebay where it was originally illegally obtained , and has passed through several hands and now can only go on the grounds of " it 's likely stolen " , not based on the actual circumstances they got it under , but rather in the sheer unlikelyhood that anyone ever had a legal right of sale to produce an available unit on the market.But we 're still ( for the most part anyway... ) in an " innocent until proven guilty " legal system here .
There are a few completely legal ways ot obtain an iSlate , and quite a few legal ways to obtain pictures etc .
( though these are all still fairly improbable to have occurred ) Heck , one of the beta testers could have left one sitting on the roof of his car when he pulled out of the parking lot , and someone found it laying on the side of the road somewhere .
There would be absolutely nothing illegal about the finder selling that to these guys.One of the beta testers may have taken the unit home to play with , and ordered pizza that night .
The pizza delivery guy may have had a cameraphone and a sharp eye when he delivered and was told to " just set it in there on the table " and noticed the empty iSlate packaging box and got a few shots of the packaging materials.You ca n't just assume for certain that things like this can only be obtained illegally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>offering to pay someone to do something illegal is, in itself, illegal.I think something has been overlooked here...  the scavenger hunt does NOT suggest doing anything illegal.
It actually has legitimate basis if you look at it from another admittedly fairly unlikely angle.Apple's had enough experience in the NDA arena that I think we can expect nearly flawless coverage.
But there remains the possibility that someone, somewhere, was allowed access within cameraphone range of an iSlate without being NDA'd.There's also the shaky ground of coming into possession of an actual unit somewhere like ebay where it was originally illegally obtained, and has passed through several hands and now can only go on the grounds of "it's likely stolen", not based on the actual circumstances they got it under, but rather in the sheer unlikelyhood that anyone ever had a legal right of sale to produce an available unit on the market.But we're still (for the most part anyway...) in an "innocent until proven guilty" legal system here.
There are a few completely legal ways ot obtain an iSlate, and quite a few legal ways to obtain pictures etc.
(though these are all still fairly improbable to have occurred)Heck, one of the beta testers could have left one sitting on the roof of his car when he pulled out of the parking lot, and someone found it laying on the side of the road somewhere.
There would be absolutely nothing illegal about the finder selling that to these guys.One of the beta testers may have taken the unit home to play with, and ordered pizza that night.
The pizza delivery guy may have had a cameraphone and a sharp eye when he delivered and was told to "just set it in there on the table" and noticed the empty iSlate packaging box and got a few shots of the packaging materials.You can't just assume for certain that things like this can only be obtained illegally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800740</id>
	<title>What NDA?</title>
	<author>Sephr</author>
	<datestamp>1263719940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this scavenger hunt is illegal, it would also be illegal for me to offer $10k to anyone who brings me the top-secret Microsoft Phone. For it to be illegal, Apple has to admit that there are specific NDAs stopping their employees from saying anything about their tablet. Without official confirmation of a specific NDA, there's no reason this should be illegal. I don't know that there could be NDAs for the Microsoft Phone, so why should it be illegal to offer a reward for it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this scavenger hunt is illegal , it would also be illegal for me to offer $ 10k to anyone who brings me the top-secret Microsoft Phone .
For it to be illegal , Apple has to admit that there are specific NDAs stopping their employees from saying anything about their tablet .
Without official confirmation of a specific NDA , there 's no reason this should be illegal .
I do n't know that there could be NDAs for the Microsoft Phone , so why should it be illegal to offer a reward for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this scavenger hunt is illegal, it would also be illegal for me to offer $10k to anyone who brings me the top-secret Microsoft Phone.
For it to be illegal, Apple has to admit that there are specific NDAs stopping their employees from saying anything about their tablet.
Without official confirmation of a specific NDA, there's no reason this should be illegal.
I don't know that there could be NDAs for the Microsoft Phone, so why should it be illegal to offer a reward for it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801222</id>
	<title>Sueing over something that do not exist?</title>
	<author>synoniem</author>
	<datestamp>1263723120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you sue someone for something that does not exist? So far Apple denies the existance of a tablet what ground do they have to go after this hunt for information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you sue someone for something that does not exist ?
So far Apple denies the existance of a tablet what ground do they have to go after this hunt for information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you sue someone for something that does not exist?
So far Apple denies the existance of a tablet what ground do they have to go after this hunt for information?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30804522</id>
	<title>They really want it to be a secret! Really</title>
	<author>Ramahan</author>
	<datestamp>1263749580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is going to garner you the most hype from the Tech news media?<br>
A) Hinting that you may have a tablet in the pipeline <br>
or <br>
B) Having one of your PR folks get a site to start a scavenger hunt for info and then have lawyer threaten said site over the hunt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is going to garner you the most hype from the Tech news media ?
A ) Hinting that you may have a tablet in the pipeline or B ) Having one of your PR folks get a site to start a scavenger hunt for info and then have lawyer threaten said site over the hunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is going to garner you the most hype from the Tech news media?
A) Hinting that you may have a tablet in the pipeline 
or 
B) Having one of your PR folks get a site to start a scavenger hunt for info and then have lawyer threaten said site over the hunt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800802</id>
	<title>Controlled leaks.</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1263720300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think if the nature of Apple's controlled leaks gets to be put up for grabs here, then what defense does Apple have?</p><p>Quite frankly I just want Apple to shit or get off the pot.  It's been nearly a decade and a half that the supposed tablet's been rumored.  Let's either get it out or say once adn for all, "NO."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if the nature of Apple 's controlled leaks gets to be put up for grabs here , then what defense does Apple have ? Quite frankly I just want Apple to shit or get off the pot .
It 's been nearly a decade and a half that the supposed tablet 's been rumored .
Let 's either get it out or say once adn for all , " NO .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if the nature of Apple's controlled leaks gets to be put up for grabs here, then what defense does Apple have?Quite frankly I just want Apple to shit or get off the pot.
It's been nearly a decade and a half that the supposed tablet's been rumored.
Let's either get it out or say once adn for all, "NO.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800488</id>
	<title>The real ones at risk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263761700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the people with "inside info" are going to be under confidentiality contracts. The web site is under less risk than the sources. The lawsuits they face will dwarf the 100K max offer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the people with " inside info " are going to be under confidentiality contracts .
The web site is under less risk than the sources .
The lawsuits they face will dwarf the 100K max offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the people with "inside info" are going to be under confidentiality contracts.
The web site is under less risk than the sources.
The lawsuits they face will dwarf the 100K max offer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800946</id>
	<title>Trade Secret</title>
	<author>devils\_taco</author>
	<datestamp>1263721320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order for something to be a trade secret, they have to keep it <i>secret</i>.

A photo snapped in public should be clear for publication.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order for something to be a trade secret , they have to keep it secret .
A photo snapped in public should be clear for publication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order for something to be a trade secret, they have to keep it secret.
A photo snapped in public should be clear for publication.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800446</id>
	<title>It's in the wording, I think....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263761280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>""We encourage you to stay within the bounds of the law", they say.  The problem, I think, is that "encourage" isn't enough.
<p>
If they had actually \_required\_ that submissions be obtained within the bounds of the law, there's nothing Apple could have remotely done to them about this, even if they don't happen to like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " We encourage you to stay within the bounds of the law " , they say .
The problem , I think , is that " encourage " is n't enough .
If they had actually \ _required \ _ that submissions be obtained within the bounds of the law , there 's nothing Apple could have remotely done to them about this , even if they do n't happen to like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>""We encourage you to stay within the bounds of the law", they say.
The problem, I think, is that "encourage" isn't enough.
If they had actually \_required\_ that submissions be obtained within the bounds of the law, there's nothing Apple could have remotely done to them about this, even if they don't happen to like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802380</id>
	<title>Re:What NDA?</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1263730920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if it does exist but is nowhere near ready?</p><p>Would images of this device hurt potentially Apple's sales of laptops if people see leaked shots of something that may or may not be ready for market and may or may not be released any time soon, who decide to hold off on buying an iPhone or macbook because they feel the tablet is close and might be just what they want.</p><p>If they are working on a tablet (and it is likely they are) it can be just as damaging for information to come out through a leak compared to an official announcement. Just ask Blizzard why they never give out release dates for games (or patches) until they are 100\% certain they can keep the date - the negative publicity of slipping that date, or having to remove features from a game that they "promised" (by announcing or showing in a beta that are later removed) can be very damaging for the image of the company in the eyes of its customers.</p><p>This happened to a computer manufacturer or an electronics manufacturer many years ago if my memory is working right - they essentially said "we have a new product in the works" and it almost instantly dried up sales of their current product to the point where they actually went out of business before the new product was ready. No way Apple will go out of business of course, but leaks could affect their bottom line, you can be certain that lawyers will get involved if Apple believes it will serve their financial interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if it does exist but is nowhere near ready ? Would images of this device hurt potentially Apple 's sales of laptops if people see leaked shots of something that may or may not be ready for market and may or may not be released any time soon , who decide to hold off on buying an iPhone or macbook because they feel the tablet is close and might be just what they want.If they are working on a tablet ( and it is likely they are ) it can be just as damaging for information to come out through a leak compared to an official announcement .
Just ask Blizzard why they never give out release dates for games ( or patches ) until they are 100 \ % certain they can keep the date - the negative publicity of slipping that date , or having to remove features from a game that they " promised " ( by announcing or showing in a beta that are later removed ) can be very damaging for the image of the company in the eyes of its customers.This happened to a computer manufacturer or an electronics manufacturer many years ago if my memory is working right - they essentially said " we have a new product in the works " and it almost instantly dried up sales of their current product to the point where they actually went out of business before the new product was ready .
No way Apple will go out of business of course , but leaks could affect their bottom line , you can be certain that lawyers will get involved if Apple believes it will serve their financial interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if it does exist but is nowhere near ready?Would images of this device hurt potentially Apple's sales of laptops if people see leaked shots of something that may or may not be ready for market and may or may not be released any time soon, who decide to hold off on buying an iPhone or macbook because they feel the tablet is close and might be just what they want.If they are working on a tablet (and it is likely they are) it can be just as damaging for information to come out through a leak compared to an official announcement.
Just ask Blizzard why they never give out release dates for games (or patches) until they are 100\% certain they can keep the date - the negative publicity of slipping that date, or having to remove features from a game that they "promised" (by announcing or showing in a beta that are later removed) can be very damaging for the image of the company in the eyes of its customers.This happened to a computer manufacturer or an electronics manufacturer many years ago if my memory is working right - they essentially said "we have a new product in the works" and it almost instantly dried up sales of their current product to the point where they actually went out of business before the new product was ready.
No way Apple will go out of business of course, but leaks could affect their bottom line, you can be certain that lawyers will get involved if Apple believes it will serve their financial interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802476</id>
	<title>heh</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1263731520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One could argue that for something to be illegal you must break a law or even the "spirt" of a law. You can't be braking the law by asking for information or proof of something, even if it were classified unless you were asking someone to break the law to obtain the information. Even breaking an NDA is not braking the law, its violating the terms of a contract and that is the only rub, and even then it's only a civil penalty (which you don't have to pay, really there can be issues, but you won't go to jail for not paying, but that's for another time). You can sue someone for anything, just like you can send a C&amp;D letter to anyone for anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One could argue that for something to be illegal you must break a law or even the " spirt " of a law .
You ca n't be braking the law by asking for information or proof of something , even if it were classified unless you were asking someone to break the law to obtain the information .
Even breaking an NDA is not braking the law , its violating the terms of a contract and that is the only rub , and even then it 's only a civil penalty ( which you do n't have to pay , really there can be issues , but you wo n't go to jail for not paying , but that 's for another time ) .
You can sue someone for anything , just like you can send a C&amp;D letter to anyone for anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One could argue that for something to be illegal you must break a law or even the "spirt" of a law.
You can't be braking the law by asking for information or proof of something, even if it were classified unless you were asking someone to break the law to obtain the information.
Even breaking an NDA is not braking the law, its violating the terms of a contract and that is the only rub, and even then it's only a civil penalty (which you don't have to pay, really there can be issues, but you won't go to jail for not paying, but that's for another time).
You can sue someone for anything, just like you can send a C&amp;D letter to anyone for anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800604</id>
	<title>Bad Idea</title>
	<author>WarpedCore</author>
	<datestamp>1263719160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're encouraging people to divulge internal information about a company that a company itself isn't willing to make publicly available yet. It'd be like AMD making a contest to confirm wild speculation and to divulge information about new Intel chips.

It's more or less a corporate espionage contest. Nowhere is it even close to a media outlet paying for pictures or an exclusive. It's asking people to subvert information about upcoming Apple products.

The lawyers at Apple are likely are doing Valleywag a favor by telling them to pull the contest. The blog would be liable for instigating and promoting the stunt. To me, it'd be like a radio station telling people to hold their piss for a Wii (did happen, a lady died, and the radio company paid money).

It's just a bad idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're encouraging people to divulge internal information about a company that a company itself is n't willing to make publicly available yet .
It 'd be like AMD making a contest to confirm wild speculation and to divulge information about new Intel chips .
It 's more or less a corporate espionage contest .
Nowhere is it even close to a media outlet paying for pictures or an exclusive .
It 's asking people to subvert information about upcoming Apple products .
The lawyers at Apple are likely are doing Valleywag a favor by telling them to pull the contest .
The blog would be liable for instigating and promoting the stunt .
To me , it 'd be like a radio station telling people to hold their piss for a Wii ( did happen , a lady died , and the radio company paid money ) .
It 's just a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're encouraging people to divulge internal information about a company that a company itself isn't willing to make publicly available yet.
It'd be like AMD making a contest to confirm wild speculation and to divulge information about new Intel chips.
It's more or less a corporate espionage contest.
Nowhere is it even close to a media outlet paying for pictures or an exclusive.
It's asking people to subvert information about upcoming Apple products.
The lawyers at Apple are likely are doing Valleywag a favor by telling them to pull the contest.
The blog would be liable for instigating and promoting the stunt.
To me, it'd be like a radio station telling people to hold their piss for a Wii (did happen, a lady died, and the radio company paid money).
It's just a bad idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30814384</id>
	<title>Tech Wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263818940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is really interesting and I'm surprised there have not been a whole host of potential problems like this one for media begging for leaks on new products.  Check out tech wars here:<br>http://mockofshame.com/technology/tech-wars/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really interesting and I 'm surprised there have not been a whole host of potential problems like this one for media begging for leaks on new products .
Check out tech wars here : http : //mockofshame.com/technology/tech-wars/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really interesting and I'm surprised there have not been a whole host of potential problems like this one for media begging for leaks on new products.
Check out tech wars here:http://mockofshame.com/technology/tech-wars/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800726</id>
	<title>Probably Illegal</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1263719880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd wager it's illegal - the "prize" is really just an open bounty on industrial espionage. Not sure, but that sounds pretty illegal to me. This isn't a scavenger hunt for "an apple, a blue dress, and page 297 from the phone book". This is the hunt for corporate secrets. Pretty clear cut to me and I'd image that high priced lawyers can make it even more clear cut than I can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd wager it 's illegal - the " prize " is really just an open bounty on industrial espionage .
Not sure , but that sounds pretty illegal to me .
This is n't a scavenger hunt for " an apple , a blue dress , and page 297 from the phone book " .
This is the hunt for corporate secrets .
Pretty clear cut to me and I 'd image that high priced lawyers can make it even more clear cut than I can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd wager it's illegal - the "prize" is really just an open bounty on industrial espionage.
Not sure, but that sounds pretty illegal to me.
This isn't a scavenger hunt for "an apple, a blue dress, and page 297 from the phone book".
This is the hunt for corporate secrets.
Pretty clear cut to me and I'd image that high priced lawyers can make it even more clear cut than I can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800908</id>
	<title>civil action vs. criminal action</title>
	<author>davek</author>
	<datestamp>1263721080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is fully within Apple's right to send the cease-and-desist letters to Valleywag.  Its basically telling them "if you continue this, we will sue you for damages, and we will win."  I see no action taken by the attorney general on anyone's behalf, since almost all speech -- even speech prohibited by another party by contract -- is protected by the US constitution.  However, the constitution <i>does not</i> protect you from the consequences of that speech, including being sued for large sums of money.</p><p>What if Valleywag received word that Apple was using lead and arsenic in their new tablet product.  How could it be illegal for them to publish this information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is fully within Apple 's right to send the cease-and-desist letters to Valleywag .
Its basically telling them " if you continue this , we will sue you for damages , and we will win .
" I see no action taken by the attorney general on anyone 's behalf , since almost all speech -- even speech prohibited by another party by contract -- is protected by the US constitution .
However , the constitution does not protect you from the consequences of that speech , including being sued for large sums of money.What if Valleywag received word that Apple was using lead and arsenic in their new tablet product .
How could it be illegal for them to publish this information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is fully within Apple's right to send the cease-and-desist letters to Valleywag.
Its basically telling them "if you continue this, we will sue you for damages, and we will win.
"  I see no action taken by the attorney general on anyone's behalf, since almost all speech -- even speech prohibited by another party by contract -- is protected by the US constitution.
However, the constitution does not protect you from the consequences of that speech, including being sued for large sums of money.What if Valleywag received word that Apple was using lead and arsenic in their new tablet product.
How could it be illegal for them to publish this information?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800702</id>
	<title>Re:I'll claim the prize</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1263719700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The prize is for a photo.... and although a picture is worth a thousand words, your description only contains 161 words, and so would not be eligible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The prize is for a photo.... and although a picture is worth a thousand words , your description only contains 161 words , and so would not be eligible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The prize is for a photo.... and although a picture is worth a thousand words, your description only contains 161 words, and so would not be eligible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30803990</id>
	<title>Re:Really?!</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263744720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stories like this are for people who are being rational, and might be putting off the purchase of a competitor's product, so they can obsess endlessly about how awesome <em>this</em> product is and how it will change everything and how they absolutely must have it RIGHT NOW even thought they don't know what it is or what it does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stories like this are for people who are being rational , and might be putting off the purchase of a competitor 's product , so they can obsess endlessly about how awesome this product is and how it will change everything and how they absolutely must have it RIGHT NOW even thought they do n't know what it is or what it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stories like this are for people who are being rational, and might be putting off the purchase of a competitor's product, so they can obsess endlessly about how awesome this product is and how it will change everything and how they absolutely must have it RIGHT NOW even thought they don't know what it is or what it does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801258</id>
	<title>Re:I'll claim the prize</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1263723360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steve Jobs hates netbooks, they aren't going to be releasing a netbook under his watch. The MacBook Air is the closest thing you're ever going to see to a netbook from Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs hates netbooks , they are n't going to be releasing a netbook under his watch .
The MacBook Air is the closest thing you 're ever going to see to a netbook from Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs hates netbooks, they aren't going to be releasing a netbook under his watch.
The MacBook Air is the closest thing you're ever going to see to a netbook from Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800674</id>
	<title>Corporate Espionage</title>
	<author>ironicsky</author>
	<datestamp>1263719580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL but this could be considered "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=corporate+espionage" title="google.com">Corporate Espionage</a> [google.com]" which could be illegal because depending on how you look at it the fact they are offering cash for trade secrets, corporate secrets and otherwise proprietary information may be considered bribery (although bribery is rarely made public like this)</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL but this could be considered " Corporate Espionage [ google.com ] " which could be illegal because depending on how you look at it the fact they are offering cash for trade secrets , corporate secrets and otherwise proprietary information may be considered bribery ( although bribery is rarely made public like this )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL but this could be considered "Corporate Espionage [google.com]" which could be illegal because depending on how you look at it the fact they are offering cash for trade secrets, corporate secrets and otherwise proprietary information may be considered bribery (although bribery is rarely made public like this)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800752</id>
	<title>Re:It's in the wording, I think....</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1263720000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are more rules:</p><p><a href="http://advertising.gawker.com/legal/contest-rules/" title="gawker.com" rel="nofollow">http://advertising.gawker.com/legal/contest-rules/</a> [gawker.com]</p><p>One of them says to make sure you have the right to share the content with Gawker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are more rules : http : //advertising.gawker.com/legal/contest-rules/ [ gawker.com ] One of them says to make sure you have the right to share the content with Gawker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are more rules:http://advertising.gawker.com/legal/contest-rules/ [gawker.com]One of them says to make sure you have the right to share the content with Gawker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800856</id>
	<title>Really?!</title>
	<author>awyeah</author>
	<datestamp>1263720660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may be a bit off topic - but don't people have better things to do?  I, for one, will likely come across one of the many news stories that are sure to be published if/when Apple releases this thing.  At that point, I will read the story, read reviews, visit Apple's web site, and determine if this device is something I would like to purchase.</p><p>Until then, I'm going to go do other things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be a bit off topic - but do n't people have better things to do ?
I , for one , will likely come across one of the many news stories that are sure to be published if/when Apple releases this thing .
At that point , I will read the story , read reviews , visit Apple 's web site , and determine if this device is something I would like to purchase.Until then , I 'm going to go do other things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be a bit off topic - but don't people have better things to do?
I, for one, will likely come across one of the many news stories that are sure to be published if/when Apple releases this thing.
At that point, I will read the story, read reviews, visit Apple's web site, and determine if this device is something I would like to purchase.Until then, I'm going to go do other things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800472</id>
	<title>controlled leak</title>
	<author>fran6gagne</author>
	<datestamp>1263761520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that their controlled leaks (<a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/01/06/1330240/How-Apple-Orchestrates-Controlled-Leaks-and-Why" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">reference</a> [slashdot.org]) has created too much hype, Apple is leaking in their pants and fear that the thing will go too far. If would be Apple, I would say Good luck to Gawker and thanks for all the free publicity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that their controlled leaks ( reference [ slashdot.org ] ) has created too much hype , Apple is leaking in their pants and fear that the thing will go too far .
If would be Apple , I would say Good luck to Gawker and thanks for all the free publicity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that their controlled leaks (reference [slashdot.org]) has created too much hype, Apple is leaking in their pants and fear that the thing will go too far.
If would be Apple, I would say Good luck to Gawker and thanks for all the free publicity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801514</id>
	<title>One wonders...</title>
	<author>zkiwi34</author>
	<datestamp>1263725040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the same thing happened to Microsoft, for example they could have said, "We offer you cash to provide proof that Microsoft has done [insert random suspicious act here], but please try to do it legally."

Well, I wonder how fast Microsoft's lawyers would have been loosed on whoever made that offer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the same thing happened to Microsoft , for example they could have said , " We offer you cash to provide proof that Microsoft has done [ insert random suspicious act here ] , but please try to do it legally .
" Well , I wonder how fast Microsoft 's lawyers would have been loosed on whoever made that offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the same thing happened to Microsoft, for example they could have said, "We offer you cash to provide proof that Microsoft has done [insert random suspicious act here], but please try to do it legally.
"

Well, I wonder how fast Microsoft's lawyers would have been loosed on whoever made that offer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801096</id>
	<title>Re:Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal?</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1263722160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing was said or suggested about paying someone to do something illegal.</p><p>Follow the first link and see Exactly what it offered.</p><p>If Apple is bold enough to bring a "secret" device out in public and photos are obtained its their own damn fault.  In this country trade secrets are only protected as long as you keep it secret.  Bring it out in public, or allow someone to take pictures, and all protection is lost.</p><p>I think the lawyer opened himself up for a bar inquiry by sending a threatening letter before the fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing was said or suggested about paying someone to do something illegal.Follow the first link and see Exactly what it offered.If Apple is bold enough to bring a " secret " device out in public and photos are obtained its their own damn fault .
In this country trade secrets are only protected as long as you keep it secret .
Bring it out in public , or allow someone to take pictures , and all protection is lost.I think the lawyer opened himself up for a bar inquiry by sending a threatening letter before the fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing was said or suggested about paying someone to do something illegal.Follow the first link and see Exactly what it offered.If Apple is bold enough to bring a "secret" device out in public and photos are obtained its their own damn fault.
In this country trade secrets are only protected as long as you keep it secret.
Bring it out in public, or allow someone to take pictures, and all protection is lost.I think the lawyer opened himself up for a bar inquiry by sending a threatening letter before the fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800922</id>
	<title>Re:Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal?</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1263721200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think this has anything to do with showing illegalities.  Apple loves this sort of attention and the legal threat is their standard procedure.  If they hadn't made legal motions against this I think there would have been many more people wondering what they're up to.  The C&amp;Ds and legal motions is Apple's way of generating even more publicity via the Streisand Effect.</p><p>I always wonder if these events are just astroturfing at it's finest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this has anything to do with showing illegalities .
Apple loves this sort of attention and the legal threat is their standard procedure .
If they had n't made legal motions against this I think there would have been many more people wondering what they 're up to .
The C&amp;Ds and legal motions is Apple 's way of generating even more publicity via the Streisand Effect.I always wonder if these events are just astroturfing at it 's finest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this has anything to do with showing illegalities.
Apple loves this sort of attention and the legal threat is their standard procedure.
If they hadn't made legal motions against this I think there would have been many more people wondering what they're up to.
The C&amp;Ds and legal motions is Apple's way of generating even more publicity via the Streisand Effect.I always wonder if these events are just astroturfing at it's finest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440</id>
	<title>Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1263761280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole idea behind this question is to show that offering to pay someone to do something illegal is, in itself, illegal.  Now are they asking someone to do something illegal?  That is another question.  In order to deliver the information they seek, is the party required to do something illegal?  Surely it may be something where a civil law suit may result, but is such law limited to criminal acts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole idea behind this question is to show that offering to pay someone to do something illegal is , in itself , illegal .
Now are they asking someone to do something illegal ?
That is another question .
In order to deliver the information they seek , is the party required to do something illegal ?
Surely it may be something where a civil law suit may result , but is such law limited to criminal acts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole idea behind this question is to show that offering to pay someone to do something illegal is, in itself, illegal.
Now are they asking someone to do something illegal?
That is another question.
In order to deliver the information they seek, is the party required to do something illegal?
Surely it may be something where a civil law suit may result, but is such law limited to criminal acts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801162</id>
	<title>Re:Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal?</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1263722640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But they aren't offering money for "talking about a commercial product before release" - if they did, we'd all be rich.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But they are n't offering money for " talking about a commercial product before release " - if they did , we 'd all be rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they aren't offering money for "talking about a commercial product before release" - if they did, we'd all be rich.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801504</id>
	<title>Gawker websites</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1263724980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, it's my opinion that Gawker sites aren't real news sites and they rely on controversial things, like this to get people looking at their sites. For instance, looking at Kotaku reveals that it's mainly just a bunch of low grade crap that you used to find on someone's Geocities site. The stuff of real substance can be found elsewhere on a site like Edge Online and you don't have to sift through the crap that's padding out the site to get you looking at more ads.
<br> <br>
They really are just paparazzi "journalists" and we don't really need their type plaguing the technology sector. It would be nice if they went away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , it 's my opinion that Gawker sites are n't real news sites and they rely on controversial things , like this to get people looking at their sites .
For instance , looking at Kotaku reveals that it 's mainly just a bunch of low grade crap that you used to find on someone 's Geocities site .
The stuff of real substance can be found elsewhere on a site like Edge Online and you do n't have to sift through the crap that 's padding out the site to get you looking at more ads .
They really are just paparazzi " journalists " and we do n't really need their type plaguing the technology sector .
It would be nice if they went away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, it's my opinion that Gawker sites aren't real news sites and they rely on controversial things, like this to get people looking at their sites.
For instance, looking at Kotaku reveals that it's mainly just a bunch of low grade crap that you used to find on someone's Geocities site.
The stuff of real substance can be found elsewhere on a site like Edge Online and you don't have to sift through the crap that's padding out the site to get you looking at more ads.
They really are just paparazzi "journalists" and we don't really need their type plaguing the technology sector.
It would be nice if they went away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801184</id>
	<title>Re:Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263722760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you pay someone to kill someone, you are still liable for the murder.  Hiring someone to perform an illegal act on your behalf doesn't protect you.  In fact it adds in a conspiracy charge.</p><p>In Gawker's case, they know there is no way to gather the information legally.  Apple has been quite clear that they don't comment on possible future products &amp; have very explicit NDAs for any contractors or suppliers in that regard.  The only way to retrieve information before a public announcement would be if someone broke their NDA.  Inciting someone to break an NDA for a reward, as Gawker is doing has no legal protection.</p><p>Also, it's best not to think that Apple sending a C&amp;D letter is a confirmation of any type of product.  Apple has had many prototypes of all kinds of devices over the years.  Bringing a product to market and protecting against release of information about research are different things.  Apple is very protective of any release of information, so this could just be that normal protection.</p><p>In this case, is it possible Apple is planning to release a tablet? Of course, &amp; using normal investigative means of looking at a ripe market, existence of core expertise within Apple, as well as an opportunity for Apple to succeed could all lead to supposition.  However, that is nothing more than an educated guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you pay someone to kill someone , you are still liable for the murder .
Hiring someone to perform an illegal act on your behalf does n't protect you .
In fact it adds in a conspiracy charge.In Gawker 's case , they know there is no way to gather the information legally .
Apple has been quite clear that they do n't comment on possible future products &amp; have very explicit NDAs for any contractors or suppliers in that regard .
The only way to retrieve information before a public announcement would be if someone broke their NDA .
Inciting someone to break an NDA for a reward , as Gawker is doing has no legal protection.Also , it 's best not to think that Apple sending a C&amp;D letter is a confirmation of any type of product .
Apple has had many prototypes of all kinds of devices over the years .
Bringing a product to market and protecting against release of information about research are different things .
Apple is very protective of any release of information , so this could just be that normal protection.In this case , is it possible Apple is planning to release a tablet ?
Of course , &amp; using normal investigative means of looking at a ripe market , existence of core expertise within Apple , as well as an opportunity for Apple to succeed could all lead to supposition .
However , that is nothing more than an educated guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you pay someone to kill someone, you are still liable for the murder.
Hiring someone to perform an illegal act on your behalf doesn't protect you.
In fact it adds in a conspiracy charge.In Gawker's case, they know there is no way to gather the information legally.
Apple has been quite clear that they don't comment on possible future products &amp; have very explicit NDAs for any contractors or suppliers in that regard.
The only way to retrieve information before a public announcement would be if someone broke their NDA.
Inciting someone to break an NDA for a reward, as Gawker is doing has no legal protection.Also, it's best not to think that Apple sending a C&amp;D letter is a confirmation of any type of product.
Apple has had many prototypes of all kinds of devices over the years.
Bringing a product to market and protecting against release of information about research are different things.
Apple is very protective of any release of information, so this could just be that normal protection.In this case, is it possible Apple is planning to release a tablet?
Of course, &amp; using normal investigative means of looking at a ripe market, existence of core expertise within Apple, as well as an opportunity for Apple to succeed could all lead to supposition.
However, that is nothing more than an educated guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30803776</id>
	<title>Re:I'll claim the prize</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263742740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Apple tablet will feature a 9.5'' by 7.5'' display using a new version of E-Ink(TM) technology through which the tablet will display color while having the display consume no power unless something changes. There will be an integrated and optimized sleep mode which the tablet can fall into while maintaining a color picture, and this mode takes a mere 135 ms to get out of, so even applications like slideshows will use it. The processor has multiple power modes, allowing it to go between 500 MHz and 3.7 GHz depending on the task. Expected battery life, with all this, is 18-36 hours of average use. The screen will contain piezoelectric materials that can add a tactile layer to the onscreen keyboard. Professional typists have been found to be 80-90\% as effective with this keyboard as with a traditional one, and thanks to ridges being put onto window edges and buttons blind people are seeing a GUI productivity increase of 300-400\%.</p></div></blockquote><p>

In actual fact, the tablet will use old technology and be vastly underpowered, utilising the same ARM chip as the iphone but under clocked a bit more. Screen will be an older style LCD rather then LED or OLED. Battery life will advertised to be quite high but real world observations show that this is not the case. The interface will be limited and as per Apple's Modus Operandi, the devices file system will be hidden, there will be no MSC or other method to use the device as removable storage and only one application will be permitted to be open at a time. Keyboard will be slow and painful to use, most people's typing speed will be reduced by over 50\% and accuracy will suffer by up to 60\% resulting in an inordinate amount to typso's.<br> <br>

Advertising however is expected to be top notch, skilfully hiding the deficiencies of the platform and the platform is expected to cost About US$1,200 or AU$4,500 which you fanboys will pay as the master Steve demands it.<br> <br>

So Gawker, you may make my cheque out to Capt F Obvious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Apple tablet will feature a 9.5' ' by 7.5' ' display using a new version of E-Ink ( TM ) technology through which the tablet will display color while having the display consume no power unless something changes .
There will be an integrated and optimized sleep mode which the tablet can fall into while maintaining a color picture , and this mode takes a mere 135 ms to get out of , so even applications like slideshows will use it .
The processor has multiple power modes , allowing it to go between 500 MHz and 3.7 GHz depending on the task .
Expected battery life , with all this , is 18-36 hours of average use .
The screen will contain piezoelectric materials that can add a tactile layer to the onscreen keyboard .
Professional typists have been found to be 80-90 \ % as effective with this keyboard as with a traditional one , and thanks to ridges being put onto window edges and buttons blind people are seeing a GUI productivity increase of 300-400 \ % .
In actual fact , the tablet will use old technology and be vastly underpowered , utilising the same ARM chip as the iphone but under clocked a bit more .
Screen will be an older style LCD rather then LED or OLED .
Battery life will advertised to be quite high but real world observations show that this is not the case .
The interface will be limited and as per Apple 's Modus Operandi , the devices file system will be hidden , there will be no MSC or other method to use the device as removable storage and only one application will be permitted to be open at a time .
Keyboard will be slow and painful to use , most people 's typing speed will be reduced by over 50 \ % and accuracy will suffer by up to 60 \ % resulting in an inordinate amount to typso 's .
Advertising however is expected to be top notch , skilfully hiding the deficiencies of the platform and the platform is expected to cost About US $ 1,200 or AU $ 4,500 which you fanboys will pay as the master Steve demands it .
So Gawker , you may make my cheque out to Capt F Obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Apple tablet will feature a 9.5'' by 7.5'' display using a new version of E-Ink(TM) technology through which the tablet will display color while having the display consume no power unless something changes.
There will be an integrated and optimized sleep mode which the tablet can fall into while maintaining a color picture, and this mode takes a mere 135 ms to get out of, so even applications like slideshows will use it.
The processor has multiple power modes, allowing it to go between 500 MHz and 3.7 GHz depending on the task.
Expected battery life, with all this, is 18-36 hours of average use.
The screen will contain piezoelectric materials that can add a tactile layer to the onscreen keyboard.
Professional typists have been found to be 80-90\% as effective with this keyboard as with a traditional one, and thanks to ridges being put onto window edges and buttons blind people are seeing a GUI productivity increase of 300-400\%.
In actual fact, the tablet will use old technology and be vastly underpowered, utilising the same ARM chip as the iphone but under clocked a bit more.
Screen will be an older style LCD rather then LED or OLED.
Battery life will advertised to be quite high but real world observations show that this is not the case.
The interface will be limited and as per Apple's Modus Operandi, the devices file system will be hidden, there will be no MSC or other method to use the device as removable storage and only one application will be permitted to be open at a time.
Keyboard will be slow and painful to use, most people's typing speed will be reduced by over 50\% and accuracy will suffer by up to 60\% resulting in an inordinate amount to typso's.
Advertising however is expected to be top notch, skilfully hiding the deficiencies of the platform and the platform is expected to cost About US$1,200 or AU$4,500 which you fanboys will pay as the master Steve demands it.
So Gawker, you may make my cheque out to Capt F Obvious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30805738</id>
	<title>Re:Really?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263809220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This may be a bit off topic - but don't people have better things to do?</p></div><p>Indeed, this tablet is just going to be similar to the ones we've already seen from competitors. Nothing new here, no quantum computing, no real-time ray-tracing, or to make a car-analogy, no flying cars..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be a bit off topic - but do n't people have better things to do ? Indeed , this tablet is just going to be similar to the ones we 've already seen from competitors .
Nothing new here , no quantum computing , no real-time ray-tracing , or to make a car-analogy , no flying cars. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be a bit off topic - but don't people have better things to do?Indeed, this tablet is just going to be similar to the ones we've already seen from competitors.
Nothing new here, no quantum computing, no real-time ray-tracing, or to make a car-analogy, no flying cars..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800738</id>
	<title>Not necessarily.</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1263719940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While Apple may be keeping it under wraps, it is still conceivable that Apple may expose someone to the tablet without making them sign an NDA.  A preemptive lawsuit ASSUMES that everyone that knows about the tablet is under NDA, but you can never make that assumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While Apple may be keeping it under wraps , it is still conceivable that Apple may expose someone to the tablet without making them sign an NDA .
A preemptive lawsuit ASSUMES that everyone that knows about the tablet is under NDA , but you can never make that assumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Apple may be keeping it under wraps, it is still conceivable that Apple may expose someone to the tablet without making them sign an NDA.
A preemptive lawsuit ASSUMES that everyone that knows about the tablet is under NDA, but you can never make that assumption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30803308</id>
	<title>Re:It's in the wording, I think....</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1263738480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I defy you to show me any law that would bar me from showing a photo of any unreleased product?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I defy you to show me any law that would bar me from showing a photo of any unreleased product ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I defy you to show me any law that would bar me from showing a photo of any unreleased product?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801044</id>
	<title>Re:controlled leak</title>
	<author>JackDW</author>
	<datestamp>1263721860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this article is still serving their agenda. All publicity is good. Last week's Apple publicity was about how Apple masterminds controlled leaks. This week's Apple publicity is about how Apple stops leaks. It's irrelevant what the news says, because the key concept is "Apple is doing something".

</p><p>Sometimes people say "I'm not buying any Apple products in protest against their consistently unethical behaviour". But with a few very rare exceptions, those people were never Apple customers anyway. In a very real sense it is irrelevant what Apple does, provided that <i>something is happening</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this article is still serving their agenda .
All publicity is good .
Last week 's Apple publicity was about how Apple masterminds controlled leaks .
This week 's Apple publicity is about how Apple stops leaks .
It 's irrelevant what the news says , because the key concept is " Apple is doing something " .
Sometimes people say " I 'm not buying any Apple products in protest against their consistently unethical behaviour " .
But with a few very rare exceptions , those people were never Apple customers anyway .
In a very real sense it is irrelevant what Apple does , provided that something is happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this article is still serving their agenda.
All publicity is good.
Last week's Apple publicity was about how Apple masterminds controlled leaks.
This week's Apple publicity is about how Apple stops leaks.
It's irrelevant what the news says, because the key concept is "Apple is doing something".
Sometimes people say "I'm not buying any Apple products in protest against their consistently unethical behaviour".
But with a few very rare exceptions, those people were never Apple customers anyway.
In a very real sense it is irrelevant what Apple does, provided that something is happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800780</id>
	<title>Re:It's in the wording, I think....</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1263720180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its impossible to say though what is within the bounds of the law. For example, if someone gave you the specs of a new graphics card how do you know if it was under an NDA or not? So either way, it wouldn't work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its impossible to say though what is within the bounds of the law .
For example , if someone gave you the specs of a new graphics card how do you know if it was under an NDA or not ?
So either way , it would n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its impossible to say though what is within the bounds of the law.
For example, if someone gave you the specs of a new graphics card how do you know if it was under an NDA or not?
So either way, it wouldn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800708</id>
	<title>Re:It's in the wording, I think....</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1263719700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I think they don't <a href="http://valleywag.gawker.com/5448177/update-apple-wins-the-first-prize-in-our-tablet-scavenger-hunt" title="gawker.com" rel="nofollow">encourage</a> [gawker.com], they advise.
</p><p>
If you read between the lines, it seems like they encourage doing the opposite of what they advise...
</p><blockquote><div><p>Apple, of course, has plenty of good lawyers like Michael Spillner, so we reiterate our advice "to stay within the bounds of the law." And also: use anonymous email addresses! <b>We can't tell Apple who you are if we don't know who you are</b>.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they do n't encourage [ gawker.com ] , they advise .
If you read between the lines , it seems like they encourage doing the opposite of what they advise.. . Apple , of course , has plenty of good lawyers like Michael Spillner , so we reiterate our advice " to stay within the bounds of the law .
" And also : use anonymous email addresses !
We ca n't tell Apple who you are if we do n't know who you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I think they don't encourage [gawker.com], they advise.
If you read between the lines, it seems like they encourage doing the opposite of what they advise...
Apple, of course, has plenty of good lawyers like Michael Spillner, so we reiterate our advice "to stay within the bounds of the law.
" And also: use anonymous email addresses!
We can't tell Apple who you are if we don't know who you are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801368</id>
	<title>Public View</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1263724020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the contest were to get images of the tablet in public, it too would be legal.  But when would that happen?  Realistically, never.</p><p>Cars however to be well tested, have to be driven on real roads - and so are out in public often enough that people can get perfectly legal spy shots (though the cars usually have some kind of misleading or obscuring trim).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the contest were to get images of the tablet in public , it too would be legal .
But when would that happen ?
Realistically , never.Cars however to be well tested , have to be driven on real roads - and so are out in public often enough that people can get perfectly legal spy shots ( though the cars usually have some kind of misleading or obscuring trim ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the contest were to get images of the tablet in public, it too would be legal.
But when would that happen?
Realistically, never.Cars however to be well tested, have to be driven on real roads - and so are out in public often enough that people can get perfectly legal spy shots (though the cars usually have some kind of misleading or obscuring trim).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30804350</id>
	<title>Re:Who Cares</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1263747960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I for one am sick of hearing about the apple tablet... either come out with it or dont but stop the crap</p></div><p>I think it's safe to assume that there are a lot of people who are not sick of hearing about the Apple tablet. I also do not think your command to for Slashdot to stop posting about it is going to be heeded.</p><p>Do you also post to auto sites asking them to stop posting about new car rumors? Or gaming sites to stop posting about SC2 or whatever? Would doing so even make any sense?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one am sick of hearing about the apple tablet... either come out with it or dont but stop the crapI think it 's safe to assume that there are a lot of people who are not sick of hearing about the Apple tablet .
I also do not think your command to for Slashdot to stop posting about it is going to be heeded.Do you also post to auto sites asking them to stop posting about new car rumors ?
Or gaming sites to stop posting about SC2 or whatever ?
Would doing so even make any sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one am sick of hearing about the apple tablet... either come out with it or dont but stop the crapI think it's safe to assume that there are a lot of people who are not sick of hearing about the Apple tablet.
I also do not think your command to for Slashdot to stop posting about it is going to be heeded.Do you also post to auto sites asking them to stop posting about new car rumors?
Or gaming sites to stop posting about SC2 or whatever?
Would doing so even make any sense?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800560</id>
	<title>About the author</title>
	<author>ifwm</author>
	<datestamp>1263718980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ben Sheffner is an attorney at NBC Universal"</p><p>Which explains the bias I detected in the article.  I repeatedly found the examples he used to support Apple's hypothetical "case" to be missing key details.</p><p>That's not to say Apple doesn't have a case (I have no idea really) but I'm always suspicious of people who intentionally omit important details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ben Sheffner is an attorney at NBC Universal " Which explains the bias I detected in the article .
I repeatedly found the examples he used to support Apple 's hypothetical " case " to be missing key details.That 's not to say Apple does n't have a case ( I have no idea really ) but I 'm always suspicious of people who intentionally omit important details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ben Sheffner is an attorney at NBC Universal"Which explains the bias I detected in the article.
I repeatedly found the examples he used to support Apple's hypothetical "case" to be missing key details.That's not to say Apple doesn't have a case (I have no idea really) but I'm always suspicious of people who intentionally omit important details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801852</id>
	<title>The Reply is worse</title>
	<author>Bruha</author>
	<datestamp>1263727140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In exchange for not getting sued they're basically being locked down to where they can no longer directly post any "leaked" information on any of their websites, and they're being told they have to notify apple of the source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In exchange for not getting sued they 're basically being locked down to where they can no longer directly post any " leaked " information on any of their websites , and they 're being told they have to notify apple of the source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In exchange for not getting sued they're basically being locked down to where they can no longer directly post any "leaked" information on any of their websites, and they're being told they have to notify apple of the source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30803288</id>
	<title>Come on guys, porno</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1263738180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, there's a prize if you RTFA this time!  And here you are, talking about Apple's next shiny gadget.  What a bunch of nerds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , there 's a prize if you RTFA this time !
And here you are , talking about Apple 's next shiny gadget .
What a bunch of nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, there's a prize if you RTFA this time!
And here you are, talking about Apple's next shiny gadget.
What a bunch of nerds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800760</id>
	<title>I have played this before....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263720060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One company offering money for independent operators to acquire a sample of another company's beta product.  Life is more like Shadowrun every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One company offering money for independent operators to acquire a sample of another company 's beta product .
Life is more like Shadowrun every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One company offering money for independent operators to acquire a sample of another company's beta product.
Life is more like Shadowrun every day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800540</id>
	<title>This is a strategic lawsuit</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1263718860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ooh, Apple is building some next generation super-secret technology and even speaking about it will get you lawyered into oblivion. They're just artificially creating marketing hype.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooh , Apple is building some next generation super-secret technology and even speaking about it will get you lawyered into oblivion .
They 're just artificially creating marketing hype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooh, Apple is building some next generation super-secret technology and even speaking about it will get you lawyered into oblivion.
They're just artificially creating marketing hype.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801228</id>
	<title>Re:Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal?</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1263723180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if the entire offer was a Joke, the courts could consider the offering of money as an inducement to violate trade secrets, thus giving the Go Ahead to the pursuit of a major lawsuit. Anyone who actually accepts the money and provides what has been requested, then opens them up to a criminal investigation of Industrial Espionage. "Jonny Menomic" was based upon the entire precept of Industrial Espionage wasn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the entire offer was a Joke , the courts could consider the offering of money as an inducement to violate trade secrets , thus giving the Go Ahead to the pursuit of a major lawsuit .
Anyone who actually accepts the money and provides what has been requested , then opens them up to a criminal investigation of Industrial Espionage .
" Jonny Menomic " was based upon the entire precept of Industrial Espionage was n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the entire offer was a Joke, the courts could consider the offering of money as an inducement to violate trade secrets, thus giving the Go Ahead to the pursuit of a major lawsuit.
Anyone who actually accepts the money and provides what has been requested, then opens them up to a criminal investigation of Industrial Espionage.
"Jonny Menomic" was based upon the entire precept of Industrial Espionage wasn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801314</id>
	<title>Re:I'll claim the prize</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263723660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What do you mean, that's all bullshit? Prove it!</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>blind people are seeing</p></div><p>Logical impossibility. QED.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean , that 's all bullshit ?
Prove it ! blind people are seeingLogical impossibility .
QED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean, that's all bullshit?
Prove it!blind people are seeingLogical impossibility.
QED.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800362</id>
	<title>Poor Steve Jobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263760440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's just afraid that people will find out that there are competitive, affordable solutions without the $3500 logo tax which went to pay for his harvested Asian organs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's just afraid that people will find out that there are competitive , affordable solutions without the $ 3500 logo tax which went to pay for his harvested Asian organs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's just afraid that people will find out that there are competitive, affordable solutions without the $3500 logo tax which went to pay for his harvested Asian organs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802662</id>
	<title>Re:What NDA?</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1263733020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...Without official confirmation of a specific NDA, there's no reason this should be illegal....</p></div><p>The existence of contracts, including NDAs, do not have to be disclosed to anyone other than the signatories.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Without official confirmation of a specific NDA , there 's no reason this should be illegal....The existence of contracts , including NDAs , do not have to be disclosed to anyone other than the signatories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...Without official confirmation of a specific NDA, there's no reason this should be illegal....The existence of contracts, including NDAs, do not have to be disclosed to anyone other than the signatories.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800530</id>
	<title>Re:Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal?</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1263718800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The whole idea behind this question is to show that offering to pay someone to do something illegal is, in itself, illegal</p></div></blockquote><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; No it isn't. There is absolutely nothing illegal about talking about a commercial product before release. It's entirely a civil matter.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole idea behind this question is to show that offering to pay someone to do something illegal is , in itself , illegal     No it is n't .
There is absolutely nothing illegal about talking about a commercial product before release .
It 's entirely a civil matter .
          Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole idea behind this question is to show that offering to pay someone to do something illegal is, in itself, illegal
    No it isn't.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about talking about a commercial product before release.
It's entirely a civil matter.
          Brett
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800634</id>
	<title>How is this different ...</title>
	<author>thephydes</author>
	<datestamp>1263719340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>.... to car magazines paying a bounty for pix of yet to be released models?</htmltext>
<tokenext>.... to car magazines paying a bounty for pix of yet to be released models ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... to car magazines paying a bounty for pix of yet to be released models?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801848</id>
	<title>Apple hates YOUR free speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263727140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And they've acted many time to VIOLATE your RIGHT to FREE SPEECH.</p><p>But of course you guys are just pragmatists, you just use what "just works" right?</p><p>Grow up and wake up. Fight for a future that isn't dominated by humanity hating bullies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And they 've acted many time to VIOLATE your RIGHT to FREE SPEECH.But of course you guys are just pragmatists , you just use what " just works " right ? Grow up and wake up .
Fight for a future that is n't dominated by humanity hating bullies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they've acted many time to VIOLATE your RIGHT to FREE SPEECH.But of course you guys are just pragmatists, you just use what "just works" right?Grow up and wake up.
Fight for a future that isn't dominated by humanity hating bullies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801146</id>
	<title>Asus Eee Pad!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263722520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is much more exciting,  http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/17/asus-dr-570-e-reader-to-sport-6-inch-oled-color-screen-122-hour?icid=sphere\_blogsmith\_inpage\_engadget</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is much more exciting , http : //www.engadget.com/2010/01/17/asus-dr-570-e-reader-to-sport-6-inch-oled-color-screen-122-hour ? icid = sphere \ _blogsmith \ _inpage \ _engadget</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is much more exciting,  http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/17/asus-dr-570-e-reader-to-sport-6-inch-oled-color-screen-122-hour?icid=sphere\_blogsmith\_inpage\_engadget</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801542</id>
	<title>Re:Who Cares</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1263725280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't about the Apple tablet - this story is about an PR gimmick for Valleywag. They don't expect to get any entries -  they expect to get page hits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about the Apple tablet - this story is about an PR gimmick for Valleywag .
They do n't expect to get any entries - they expect to get page hits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about the Apple tablet - this story is about an PR gimmick for Valleywag.
They don't expect to get any entries -  they expect to get page hits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800978</id>
	<title>Corporate America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263721560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember now, it's big business that dictates what is legal and illegal now.<br>The hell with the US Congress and the constitution, we all know corporate<br>America is calling the shots now.</p><p>I, for one, am ready to lead the revolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember now , it 's big business that dictates what is legal and illegal now.The hell with the US Congress and the constitution , we all know corporateAmerica is calling the shots now.I , for one , am ready to lead the revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember now, it's big business that dictates what is legal and illegal now.The hell with the US Congress and the constitution, we all know corporateAmerica is calling the shots now.I, for one, am ready to lead the revolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801604</id>
	<title>Where's the crime?</title>
	<author>bXTr</author>
	<datestamp>1263725700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the Apple Tablet didn't exist, the lawyers wouldn't be sending the C&amp;D. People wouldn't sign an NDA if there's nothing to disclose. Maybe the lawyers just want to claim the prize money.

Either way, if no one is induced to say anything to Valleywag, no money is paid. Where's the crime?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Apple Tablet did n't exist , the lawyers would n't be sending the C&amp;D .
People would n't sign an NDA if there 's nothing to disclose .
Maybe the lawyers just want to claim the prize money .
Either way , if no one is induced to say anything to Valleywag , no money is paid .
Where 's the crime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Apple Tablet didn't exist, the lawyers wouldn't be sending the C&amp;D.
People wouldn't sign an NDA if there's nothing to disclose.
Maybe the lawyers just want to claim the prize money.
Either way, if no one is induced to say anything to Valleywag, no money is paid.
Where's the crime?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800552</id>
	<title>mod 3owN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263718920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>distended. All I Any parting shot, thou6h I have never want them there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>distended .
All I Any parting shot , thou6h I have never want them there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>distended.
All I Any parting shot, thou6h I have never want them there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801742</id>
	<title>Re:Is putting a bounty on someone's life illegal?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1263726420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's not what is at issue here.</p><p>What is at issue is whether a private entity has a right to control information about itself, aside from what it must disclose to meet its legal obligations (e.g. in SEC filings).</p><p>To a first approximation, the way the law in the US works with respect to private secrets is once you let them out of the bag, they aren't secrets any longer. That embarrassing purchase you made on Amazon? They can tell the world all about it.  In fact, you have to assume to *do*, they just do it in a way that's hard for you to find out. They have to, because if they want to continue selling rubber solace for the lonely gentlemen, they have to be discreet about being indiscreet.  As long as you're the last to know everyone is happy. (note ironic tone)</p><p>Now when a company creates a product like this, there's no way to keep information from leaking.  They can sign all their employees and suppliers to an NDA, but information leaks, and once somebody is in possession of information that he received without doing anything illegal to get it, it's his to do whatever he wants.</p><p>If you overhear two Apple employees discussing the new secret device at the next restaurant booth, you're free to tell the world.  If you're working for the caterer for a party at Apple HQ and see an exec showing of a strange new device,  you're free to tell the world.</p><p>Even if you receive information by illegitimate channels, for *trade secrets* the situation is not so clear.  If you entice an Apple employee to break his NDA, that's bad for you, but if a disgruntled Apple employee throws the specs of the device over your transom, it's a different kettle of fish. Of course consult your lawyer if this ever happens.</p><p>It's interesting that the article is claiming that *copyright* suit threats are being made, because there is strong common law copyright protection for unpublished works.  Basically, an unpublished work is *yours* in a much more fundamental way than a published work is.  The public copyright deal, fair use and all that doesn't come into it.</p><p>Now many aspects of successful Apple products could plausibly be claimed as different kinds of intellectual property.  Some might be trademarked, some might be patented, others might be copyrighted.  But the mere *fact* that Apple is working on a product of a certain type could only be considered a trade secret, and such information is legally a secret only so long as they manage to keep that knowledge away from anyone who hasn't signed an NDA.</p><p>If the article is accurate (don't count on it) this would be one of those nasty situations where lawyers try to conjure whole new classes of rights for their clients out of existing rights of a completely different nature.  Sometimes they can obtain greater *de facto* rights for their client by sending nasty sounding C&amp;D letters that play fast and loose with the law.   That's good for their clients, but bad for society, and bad for the law if it values voluntary cooperation by citizens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's not what is at issue here.What is at issue is whether a private entity has a right to control information about itself , aside from what it must disclose to meet its legal obligations ( e.g .
in SEC filings ) .To a first approximation , the way the law in the US works with respect to private secrets is once you let them out of the bag , they are n't secrets any longer .
That embarrassing purchase you made on Amazon ?
They can tell the world all about it .
In fact , you have to assume to * do * , they just do it in a way that 's hard for you to find out .
They have to , because if they want to continue selling rubber solace for the lonely gentlemen , they have to be discreet about being indiscreet .
As long as you 're the last to know everyone is happy .
( note ironic tone ) Now when a company creates a product like this , there 's no way to keep information from leaking .
They can sign all their employees and suppliers to an NDA , but information leaks , and once somebody is in possession of information that he received without doing anything illegal to get it , it 's his to do whatever he wants.If you overhear two Apple employees discussing the new secret device at the next restaurant booth , you 're free to tell the world .
If you 're working for the caterer for a party at Apple HQ and see an exec showing of a strange new device , you 're free to tell the world.Even if you receive information by illegitimate channels , for * trade secrets * the situation is not so clear .
If you entice an Apple employee to break his NDA , that 's bad for you , but if a disgruntled Apple employee throws the specs of the device over your transom , it 's a different kettle of fish .
Of course consult your lawyer if this ever happens.It 's interesting that the article is claiming that * copyright * suit threats are being made , because there is strong common law copyright protection for unpublished works .
Basically , an unpublished work is * yours * in a much more fundamental way than a published work is .
The public copyright deal , fair use and all that does n't come into it.Now many aspects of successful Apple products could plausibly be claimed as different kinds of intellectual property .
Some might be trademarked , some might be patented , others might be copyrighted .
But the mere * fact * that Apple is working on a product of a certain type could only be considered a trade secret , and such information is legally a secret only so long as they manage to keep that knowledge away from anyone who has n't signed an NDA.If the article is accurate ( do n't count on it ) this would be one of those nasty situations where lawyers try to conjure whole new classes of rights for their clients out of existing rights of a completely different nature .
Sometimes they can obtain greater * de facto * rights for their client by sending nasty sounding C&amp;D letters that play fast and loose with the law .
That 's good for their clients , but bad for society , and bad for the law if it values voluntary cooperation by citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's not what is at issue here.What is at issue is whether a private entity has a right to control information about itself, aside from what it must disclose to meet its legal obligations (e.g.
in SEC filings).To a first approximation, the way the law in the US works with respect to private secrets is once you let them out of the bag, they aren't secrets any longer.
That embarrassing purchase you made on Amazon?
They can tell the world all about it.
In fact, you have to assume to *do*, they just do it in a way that's hard for you to find out.
They have to, because if they want to continue selling rubber solace for the lonely gentlemen, they have to be discreet about being indiscreet.
As long as you're the last to know everyone is happy.
(note ironic tone)Now when a company creates a product like this, there's no way to keep information from leaking.
They can sign all their employees and suppliers to an NDA, but information leaks, and once somebody is in possession of information that he received without doing anything illegal to get it, it's his to do whatever he wants.If you overhear two Apple employees discussing the new secret device at the next restaurant booth, you're free to tell the world.
If you're working for the caterer for a party at Apple HQ and see an exec showing of a strange new device,  you're free to tell the world.Even if you receive information by illegitimate channels, for *trade secrets* the situation is not so clear.
If you entice an Apple employee to break his NDA, that's bad for you, but if a disgruntled Apple employee throws the specs of the device over your transom, it's a different kettle of fish.
Of course consult your lawyer if this ever happens.It's interesting that the article is claiming that *copyright* suit threats are being made, because there is strong common law copyright protection for unpublished works.
Basically, an unpublished work is *yours* in a much more fundamental way than a published work is.
The public copyright deal, fair use and all that doesn't come into it.Now many aspects of successful Apple products could plausibly be claimed as different kinds of intellectual property.
Some might be trademarked, some might be patented, others might be copyrighted.
But the mere *fact* that Apple is working on a product of a certain type could only be considered a trade secret, and such information is legally a secret only so long as they manage to keep that knowledge away from anyone who hasn't signed an NDA.If the article is accurate (don't count on it) this would be one of those nasty situations where lawyers try to conjure whole new classes of rights for their clients out of existing rights of a completely different nature.
Sometimes they can obtain greater *de facto* rights for their client by sending nasty sounding C&amp;D letters that play fast and loose with the law.
That's good for their clients, but bad for society, and bad for the law if it values voluntary cooperation by citizens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801588</id>
	<title>Re:I'll claim the prize</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1263725640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, the Air. I remember how the Macbook Air was loved and praised here as Yet Another Apple First here on Slashdot, on the grounds that it was a mm smaller than the smallest laptop. Then they promptly went very quiet, as netbooks appeared on the market, offering much smaller devices at about 10\% of the price, and we never heard about the Air again...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , the Air .
I remember how the Macbook Air was loved and praised here as Yet Another Apple First here on Slashdot , on the grounds that it was a mm smaller than the smallest laptop .
Then they promptly went very quiet , as netbooks appeared on the market , offering much smaller devices at about 10 \ % of the price , and we never heard about the Air again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, the Air.
I remember how the Macbook Air was loved and praised here as Yet Another Apple First here on Slashdot, on the grounds that it was a mm smaller than the smallest laptop.
Then they promptly went very quiet, as netbooks appeared on the market, offering much smaller devices at about 10\% of the price, and we never heard about the Air again...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802362</id>
	<title>Can the absence of a product be a trade secret?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263730800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that Apple's legal threat is tacit admission that the iTablet (or whatever such a product would be called) exists. I mean, how can you sue for inducing someone to violate the trade secret that a particular product does not exist? Is that even a trade secret?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that Apple 's legal threat is tacit admission that the iTablet ( or whatever such a product would be called ) exists .
I mean , how can you sue for inducing someone to violate the trade secret that a particular product does not exist ?
Is that even a trade secret ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that Apple's legal threat is tacit admission that the iTablet (or whatever such a product would be called) exists.
I mean, how can you sue for inducing someone to violate the trade secret that a particular product does not exist?
Is that even a trade secret?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800808</id>
	<title>Re:I'll claim the prize</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1263720300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think it is.  It's not even a tablet, it's a netbook.  I will explain why.<br> <br>
First, tablets are a niche, and the iPod touch fills in a lot of that niche.  Secondly, the new device is expected to fill in between the ipods and the laptops, but a tablet would likely be more expensive than the laptop (unless Apple has some seriously revolutionary technology that none of us have heard of).  Third, there is a huge obvious market for an Apple netbook (have you ever met anyone who thought of getting an Apple, but it was too expensive?  It's a huge market).<br> <br>
Finally, last year at the first quarter investor conference call, someone asked Tim Cook if they had any plans for releasing a netbook, and Tim sounded like a deer caught in the headlights.  Finally he said, "It's a small market right now, but we're watching it, and if it takes off we have some good ideas."  <br> <br>
Finally, I'm going to say once again, tablets just aren't that useful compared to laptops with keyboards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it is .
It 's not even a tablet , it 's a netbook .
I will explain why .
First , tablets are a niche , and the iPod touch fills in a lot of that niche .
Secondly , the new device is expected to fill in between the ipods and the laptops , but a tablet would likely be more expensive than the laptop ( unless Apple has some seriously revolutionary technology that none of us have heard of ) .
Third , there is a huge obvious market for an Apple netbook ( have you ever met anyone who thought of getting an Apple , but it was too expensive ?
It 's a huge market ) .
Finally , last year at the first quarter investor conference call , someone asked Tim Cook if they had any plans for releasing a netbook , and Tim sounded like a deer caught in the headlights .
Finally he said , " It 's a small market right now , but we 're watching it , and if it takes off we have some good ideas .
" Finally , I 'm going to say once again , tablets just are n't that useful compared to laptops with keyboards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it is.
It's not even a tablet, it's a netbook.
I will explain why.
First, tablets are a niche, and the iPod touch fills in a lot of that niche.
Secondly, the new device is expected to fill in between the ipods and the laptops, but a tablet would likely be more expensive than the laptop (unless Apple has some seriously revolutionary technology that none of us have heard of).
Third, there is a huge obvious market for an Apple netbook (have you ever met anyone who thought of getting an Apple, but it was too expensive?
It's a huge market).
Finally, last year at the first quarter investor conference call, someone asked Tim Cook if they had any plans for releasing a netbook, and Tim sounded like a deer caught in the headlights.
Finally he said, "It's a small market right now, but we're watching it, and if it takes off we have some good ideas.
"   
Finally, I'm going to say once again, tablets just aren't that useful compared to laptops with keyboards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801810</id>
	<title>who cares ?</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1263726840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>really, who does ?</p><p>idiot grad for headlines about news of no import whatosever.</p><p>rather probably orchestrated by Apple marketing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>really , who does ? idiot grad for headlines about news of no import whatosever.rather probably orchestrated by Apple marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>really, who does ?idiot grad for headlines about news of no import whatosever.rather probably orchestrated by Apple marketing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800508</id>
	<title>I'll claim the prize</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1263761880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Apple tablet will feature a 9.5'' by 7.5'' display using a new version of E-Ink(TM) technology through which the tablet will display color while having the display consume no power unless something changes. There will be an integrated and optimized sleep mode which the tablet can fall into while maintaining a color picture, and this mode takes a mere 135 ms to get out of, so even applications like slideshows will use it. The processor has multiple power modes, allowing it to go between 500 MHz and 3.7 GHz depending on the task. Expected battery life, with all this, is 18-36 hours of average use. The screen will contain piezoelectric materials that can add a tactile layer to the onscreen keyboard. Professional typists have been found to be 80-90\% as effective with this keyboard as with a traditional one, and thanks to ridges being put onto window edges and buttons blind people are seeing a GUI productivity increase of 300-400\%.</p><p>What do you mean, that's all bullshit? Prove it! I'll be collecting my prize for now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Apple tablet will feature a 9.5' ' by 7.5' ' display using a new version of E-Ink ( TM ) technology through which the tablet will display color while having the display consume no power unless something changes .
There will be an integrated and optimized sleep mode which the tablet can fall into while maintaining a color picture , and this mode takes a mere 135 ms to get out of , so even applications like slideshows will use it .
The processor has multiple power modes , allowing it to go between 500 MHz and 3.7 GHz depending on the task .
Expected battery life , with all this , is 18-36 hours of average use .
The screen will contain piezoelectric materials that can add a tactile layer to the onscreen keyboard .
Professional typists have been found to be 80-90 \ % as effective with this keyboard as with a traditional one , and thanks to ridges being put onto window edges and buttons blind people are seeing a GUI productivity increase of 300-400 \ % .What do you mean , that 's all bullshit ?
Prove it !
I 'll be collecting my prize for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Apple tablet will feature a 9.5'' by 7.5'' display using a new version of E-Ink(TM) technology through which the tablet will display color while having the display consume no power unless something changes.
There will be an integrated and optimized sleep mode which the tablet can fall into while maintaining a color picture, and this mode takes a mere 135 ms to get out of, so even applications like slideshows will use it.
The processor has multiple power modes, allowing it to go between 500 MHz and 3.7 GHz depending on the task.
Expected battery life, with all this, is 18-36 hours of average use.
The screen will contain piezoelectric materials that can add a tactile layer to the onscreen keyboard.
Professional typists have been found to be 80-90\% as effective with this keyboard as with a traditional one, and thanks to ridges being put onto window edges and buttons blind people are seeing a GUI productivity increase of 300-400\%.What do you mean, that's all bullshit?
Prove it!
I'll be collecting my prize for now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30813286</id>
	<title>Re:I'll claim the prize</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263812760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Anything Apple makes will not be a netbook.  One part of the definition for a netbook is they are cheap, and Apple doesn't even sell a phone cheap enough to count as a netbook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything Apple makes will not be a netbook .
One part of the definition for a netbook is they are cheap , and Apple does n't even sell a phone cheap enough to count as a netbook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Anything Apple makes will not be a netbook.
One part of the definition for a netbook is they are cheap, and Apple doesn't even sell a phone cheap enough to count as a netbook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800886</id>
	<title>Doing it Legally</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1263721020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's possible to find this information legally.</p><p>There's certain places in the world that have different views on IP law, and while contractually bound from doing such a thing here, such provision might not hold up there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible to find this information legally.There 's certain places in the world that have different views on IP law , and while contractually bound from doing such a thing here , such provision might not hold up there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible to find this information legally.There's certain places in the world that have different views on IP law, and while contractually bound from doing such a thing here, such provision might not hold up there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801362</id>
	<title>Re:What NDA?</title>
	<author>yabos</author>
	<datestamp>1263724020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you go to work for Apple and just about every other company in existence, you sign an NDA.  There might not be any specific tablet NDA, it's just covered under the general one you sign saying you won't release trade secrets before the company does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you go to work for Apple and just about every other company in existence , you sign an NDA .
There might not be any specific tablet NDA , it 's just covered under the general one you sign saying you wo n't release trade secrets before the company does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you go to work for Apple and just about every other company in existence, you sign an NDA.
There might not be any specific tablet NDA, it's just covered under the general one you sign saying you won't release trade secrets before the company does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801834</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Steve Jobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263727020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The operation had, at first, gone smoothly.

The Basilisks had pummeled the enemy stronghold to rubble, leaving what had once been a bunker reduced to little more than a mass of cracked concrete slabs on top of a mound of dust and dirt. Then, the Kasrkin had moved in with the expected efficiency, cleansing their way through the heretic, the traitor, the mutant and the furry with well aimed hellgun volleys and the occasional grenade salvo to clear some hastily set-up fortification hardly greater than a few scattered sandbags piled up.

The Imperial Guard had come to purge the planet, now in the clutches of a Slaaneshi cult. Before this, the planet was in control of the Tau, and their firepower had proven strong enough to keep the Imperial Guard away. But now, the foul, stupid sexy cultists had overrun the Tau defenses before these could react, and given the Imperium an excellent chance to take back Chan IV. And the time had come for the Tau to GTFO.

So far, all was going just as planned...

However, it was when the Emperor's warriors stepped on top of the remains of the bunker that things went horribly wrong. The PDF Basilisks that had aided them showed their true colors at that moment, and opened fire on the Kasrkin platoon. The brave Anonymous quickly hugged the ground, as they insulted the faggots firing on them through their comm-beads, but they were only answered with jeering and calls for buttsecks.

The green-faced Kasrkin, Anonymous all of them but for one, winced with every impact, but resisted bravely the terrible barrage. More and more of them died under the rain of Earthshaker rounds, and the dust thrown up mixed with blood and body parts, as well as screams of pain and hax. The barrage went on fo' hours, and when it ended, the position the Kasrkin were at looked as if many pairs of hands coming out of the ground had opened, then rubbed, and then distended the very material they were made of to open huge, gaping holes into which the light of the sun could not get, the bottom dark and mysterious and not quite inviting.

The only discordant note was the pile of concrete that used to be a bunker, now shaped quite like a monolith.

From under a pile of dirt close to the bunker's remains, a quiet groan rose. The earth shifted, and then started falling as the figure under it moved, trying to free itself of the weight. Slithering out like a snake on a plain, a Kasrkin's green armor slipped out of the earth pile.

Night started to fall as the lone Kasrkin survivor moved around, looking for survivors of the barrage, but all the Anonymous to be found in the hours before night fell were dead. Manly tears were shed for the brave warriors of the Imperium, but the Kasrkin did not have time to cry as many as they deserved. Nimble fingers set to work on the gauntlet's control systems to activate the communications codes, but the barrage had seemingly damaged the Tripfag Identification Tables System (TITS).

TITS being useless, the Kasrkin's position in the platoon as the only namefag and vox-officer was now...decorative. Like a million skulls on power armor, or clothes on a daemonette. But truth be told, things could be worse...

No sooner had the lone figure in green armor thought that, than a sudden cacophony of whining sounds echoed in the quickly darkening landscape beyond the demolished position. The Kasrkin crouched and ran towards the monolith-like shape of the bunker's ruins, looking for cover. Once stuck to the stone like a lonely man to his pillow girl, the Kasrkin looked around the concrete only to see a strange scene.

A Tau Fire Warrior ran up the mound, followed by a horde of mutant beasts firing their weapons wildly, hitting the Tau as many times as a weeaboo would "hit it" in real life. That is, none.

But this dismal display of marksmanship did nothing to suggest to the Kasrkin that this was a safe place to be. There seemed to be a lot of furries coming up...and the sudden growling starting behind the Kasrkin didn't sound too good. Flicking the hellgun's safety off, the superbly trained warrior turned to fac</htmltext>
<tokenext>The operation had , at first , gone smoothly .
The Basilisks had pummeled the enemy stronghold to rubble , leaving what had once been a bunker reduced to little more than a mass of cracked concrete slabs on top of a mound of dust and dirt .
Then , the Kasrkin had moved in with the expected efficiency , cleansing their way through the heretic , the traitor , the mutant and the furry with well aimed hellgun volleys and the occasional grenade salvo to clear some hastily set-up fortification hardly greater than a few scattered sandbags piled up .
The Imperial Guard had come to purge the planet , now in the clutches of a Slaaneshi cult .
Before this , the planet was in control of the Tau , and their firepower had proven strong enough to keep the Imperial Guard away .
But now , the foul , stupid sexy cultists had overrun the Tau defenses before these could react , and given the Imperium an excellent chance to take back Chan IV .
And the time had come for the Tau to GTFO .
So far , all was going just as planned.. . However , it was when the Emperor 's warriors stepped on top of the remains of the bunker that things went horribly wrong .
The PDF Basilisks that had aided them showed their true colors at that moment , and opened fire on the Kasrkin platoon .
The brave Anonymous quickly hugged the ground , as they insulted the faggots firing on them through their comm-beads , but they were only answered with jeering and calls for buttsecks .
The green-faced Kasrkin , Anonymous all of them but for one , winced with every impact , but resisted bravely the terrible barrage .
More and more of them died under the rain of Earthshaker rounds , and the dust thrown up mixed with blood and body parts , as well as screams of pain and hax .
The barrage went on fo ' hours , and when it ended , the position the Kasrkin were at looked as if many pairs of hands coming out of the ground had opened , then rubbed , and then distended the very material they were made of to open huge , gaping holes into which the light of the sun could not get , the bottom dark and mysterious and not quite inviting .
The only discordant note was the pile of concrete that used to be a bunker , now shaped quite like a monolith .
From under a pile of dirt close to the bunker 's remains , a quiet groan rose .
The earth shifted , and then started falling as the figure under it moved , trying to free itself of the weight .
Slithering out like a snake on a plain , a Kasrkin 's green armor slipped out of the earth pile .
Night started to fall as the lone Kasrkin survivor moved around , looking for survivors of the barrage , but all the Anonymous to be found in the hours before night fell were dead .
Manly tears were shed for the brave warriors of the Imperium , but the Kasrkin did not have time to cry as many as they deserved .
Nimble fingers set to work on the gauntlet 's control systems to activate the communications codes , but the barrage had seemingly damaged the Tripfag Identification Tables System ( TITS ) .
TITS being useless , the Kasrkin 's position in the platoon as the only namefag and vox-officer was now...decorative .
Like a million skulls on power armor , or clothes on a daemonette .
But truth be told , things could be worse.. . No sooner had the lone figure in green armor thought that , than a sudden cacophony of whining sounds echoed in the quickly darkening landscape beyond the demolished position .
The Kasrkin crouched and ran towards the monolith-like shape of the bunker 's ruins , looking for cover .
Once stuck to the stone like a lonely man to his pillow girl , the Kasrkin looked around the concrete only to see a strange scene .
A Tau Fire Warrior ran up the mound , followed by a horde of mutant beasts firing their weapons wildly , hitting the Tau as many times as a weeaboo would " hit it " in real life .
That is , none .
But this dismal display of marksmanship did nothing to suggest to the Kasrkin that this was a safe place to be .
There seemed to be a lot of furries coming up...and the sudden growling starting behind the Kasrkin did n't sound too good .
Flicking the hellgun 's safety off , the superbly trained warrior turned to fac</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The operation had, at first, gone smoothly.
The Basilisks had pummeled the enemy stronghold to rubble, leaving what had once been a bunker reduced to little more than a mass of cracked concrete slabs on top of a mound of dust and dirt.
Then, the Kasrkin had moved in with the expected efficiency, cleansing their way through the heretic, the traitor, the mutant and the furry with well aimed hellgun volleys and the occasional grenade salvo to clear some hastily set-up fortification hardly greater than a few scattered sandbags piled up.
The Imperial Guard had come to purge the planet, now in the clutches of a Slaaneshi cult.
Before this, the planet was in control of the Tau, and their firepower had proven strong enough to keep the Imperial Guard away.
But now, the foul, stupid sexy cultists had overrun the Tau defenses before these could react, and given the Imperium an excellent chance to take back Chan IV.
And the time had come for the Tau to GTFO.
So far, all was going just as planned...

However, it was when the Emperor's warriors stepped on top of the remains of the bunker that things went horribly wrong.
The PDF Basilisks that had aided them showed their true colors at that moment, and opened fire on the Kasrkin platoon.
The brave Anonymous quickly hugged the ground, as they insulted the faggots firing on them through their comm-beads, but they were only answered with jeering and calls for buttsecks.
The green-faced Kasrkin, Anonymous all of them but for one, winced with every impact, but resisted bravely the terrible barrage.
More and more of them died under the rain of Earthshaker rounds, and the dust thrown up mixed with blood and body parts, as well as screams of pain and hax.
The barrage went on fo' hours, and when it ended, the position the Kasrkin were at looked as if many pairs of hands coming out of the ground had opened, then rubbed, and then distended the very material they were made of to open huge, gaping holes into which the light of the sun could not get, the bottom dark and mysterious and not quite inviting.
The only discordant note was the pile of concrete that used to be a bunker, now shaped quite like a monolith.
From under a pile of dirt close to the bunker's remains, a quiet groan rose.
The earth shifted, and then started falling as the figure under it moved, trying to free itself of the weight.
Slithering out like a snake on a plain, a Kasrkin's green armor slipped out of the earth pile.
Night started to fall as the lone Kasrkin survivor moved around, looking for survivors of the barrage, but all the Anonymous to be found in the hours before night fell were dead.
Manly tears were shed for the brave warriors of the Imperium, but the Kasrkin did not have time to cry as many as they deserved.
Nimble fingers set to work on the gauntlet's control systems to activate the communications codes, but the barrage had seemingly damaged the Tripfag Identification Tables System (TITS).
TITS being useless, the Kasrkin's position in the platoon as the only namefag and vox-officer was now...decorative.
Like a million skulls on power armor, or clothes on a daemonette.
But truth be told, things could be worse...

No sooner had the lone figure in green armor thought that, than a sudden cacophony of whining sounds echoed in the quickly darkening landscape beyond the demolished position.
The Kasrkin crouched and ran towards the monolith-like shape of the bunker's ruins, looking for cover.
Once stuck to the stone like a lonely man to his pillow girl, the Kasrkin looked around the concrete only to see a strange scene.
A Tau Fire Warrior ran up the mound, followed by a horde of mutant beasts firing their weapons wildly, hitting the Tau as many times as a weeaboo would "hit it" in real life.
That is, none.
But this dismal display of marksmanship did nothing to suggest to the Kasrkin that this was a safe place to be.
There seemed to be a lot of furries coming up...and the sudden growling starting behind the Kasrkin didn't sound too good.
Flicking the hellgun's safety off, the superbly trained warrior turned to fac</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800362</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30803776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30803990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30804350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30803308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30805738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30813286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_17_1915249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801258
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30813286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30803776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30802362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30803308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30804350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30801834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30803990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30805738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_17_1915249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_17_1915249.30800978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
