<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_03_1528242</id>
	<title>MPEG LA Extends H.264 Royalty-Free Period</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265212620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Sir Homer writes <i>"The MPEG LA has <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG\%20LA\%20News\%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf">extended their royalty-free license</a> (PDF) for 'Internet Video that is free to end users' until the end of 2016. This means webmasters who are registered MPEG LA licensees will not have to pay a royalty to stream H.264 video for the next six years. However the last patent in the H.264 portfolio <a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020737.html">expires in 2028</a>, and the MPEG LA has not released what fees, if any, it will charge webmasters after this 'free trial' period is over."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sir Homer writes " The MPEG LA has extended their royalty-free license ( PDF ) for 'Internet Video that is free to end users ' until the end of 2016 .
This means webmasters who are registered MPEG LA licensees will not have to pay a royalty to stream H.264 video for the next six years .
However the last patent in the H.264 portfolio expires in 2028 , and the MPEG LA has not released what fees , if any , it will charge webmasters after this 'free trial ' period is over .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sir Homer writes "The MPEG LA has extended their royalty-free license (PDF) for 'Internet Video that is free to end users' until the end of 2016.
This means webmasters who are registered MPEG LA licensees will not have to pay a royalty to stream H.264 video for the next six years.
However the last patent in the H.264 portfolio expires in 2028, and the MPEG LA has not released what fees, if any, it will charge webmasters after this 'free trial' period is over.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010788</id>
	<title>Open video</title>
	<author>Skatox</author>
	<datestamp>1264957680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm against this patent, HTML should support only open standarts</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm against this patent , HTML should support only open standarts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm against this patent, HTML should support only open standarts</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012176</id>
	<title>Re:documenting H.264 on http://en.swpat.org</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264962720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I think that we should consider whether the government should be able to exercise eminent domain for patents in cases like this.  The purpose of patents was to encourage people to invest in devising new technology, and so I don't think it's horrible to think the people behind the technology in H264 deserve to have their investment pay off to some degree.  On the other hand, H264 being the defacto standard while being patent encumbered is an unacceptable situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think that we should consider whether the government should be able to exercise eminent domain for patents in cases like this .
The purpose of patents was to encourage people to invest in devising new technology , and so I do n't think it 's horrible to think the people behind the technology in H264 deserve to have their investment pay off to some degree .
On the other hand , H264 being the defacto standard while being patent encumbered is an unacceptable situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think that we should consider whether the government should be able to exercise eminent domain for patents in cases like this.
The purpose of patents was to encourage people to invest in devising new technology, and so I don't think it's horrible to think the people behind the technology in H264 deserve to have their investment pay off to some degree.
On the other hand, H264 being the defacto standard while being patent encumbered is an unacceptable situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013024</id>
	<title>Want to see Dirac uptake!</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1264966560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried out Dirac for some of my private video collection last night and was quite impressed by the size of files output whilst still having reasonable quality.  I shall be trying it out as my own preferred format for ripped DVDs but it is a standard it would be really interesting to see more uptake of.  It's worth remembering that Theora is not the only open source and patent free codec out there, nor necessarily even the highest quality one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried out Dirac for some of my private video collection last night and was quite impressed by the size of files output whilst still having reasonable quality .
I shall be trying it out as my own preferred format for ripped DVDs but it is a standard it would be really interesting to see more uptake of .
It 's worth remembering that Theora is not the only open source and patent free codec out there , nor necessarily even the highest quality one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried out Dirac for some of my private video collection last night and was quite impressed by the size of files output whilst still having reasonable quality.
I shall be trying it out as my own preferred format for ripped DVDs but it is a standard it would be really interesting to see more uptake of.
It's worth remembering that Theora is not the only open source and patent free codec out there, nor necessarily even the highest quality one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31037636</id>
	<title>Re:We keep repeating the same mistakes</title>
	<author>adipocere</author>
	<datestamp>1265400120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, I completely ignored the hardware decoding aspects.  Every time I look at video/audio encoding/decoding, I end up adding at least one more link in the chain.  I don't know if video encoding is all that easy.  I don't know personally anyone who does it and I know a fair bunch of programmers in disparate knowledge domains.  Maybe I just don't know the right guys.</p><p>I'm not completely ignorant of serving video over HTTP, I'm just not a huge fan of it.  I know it's what the cool kids are doing right now, but it overloads the protocol in a way it wasn't meant to be.  Traffic shaping alone kills the issue for me.  I would much rather have my lightweight text delivered to me over HTTP and then someone else's bandwidth hoarking video over another protocol.  I know everyone talks about the coming bandwidth utopia, but where I am at, we're having significant issues with certain folks (ahem, students) absolutely slamming the Teh Tubes with torrent traffic and videos, so much so that people are having trouble checking email and reading webpages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , I completely ignored the hardware decoding aspects .
Every time I look at video/audio encoding/decoding , I end up adding at least one more link in the chain .
I do n't know if video encoding is all that easy .
I do n't know personally anyone who does it and I know a fair bunch of programmers in disparate knowledge domains .
Maybe I just do n't know the right guys.I 'm not completely ignorant of serving video over HTTP , I 'm just not a huge fan of it .
I know it 's what the cool kids are doing right now , but it overloads the protocol in a way it was n't meant to be .
Traffic shaping alone kills the issue for me .
I would much rather have my lightweight text delivered to me over HTTP and then someone else 's bandwidth hoarking video over another protocol .
I know everyone talks about the coming bandwidth utopia , but where I am at , we 're having significant issues with certain folks ( ahem , students ) absolutely slamming the Teh Tubes with torrent traffic and videos , so much so that people are having trouble checking email and reading webpages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, I completely ignored the hardware decoding aspects.
Every time I look at video/audio encoding/decoding, I end up adding at least one more link in the chain.
I don't know if video encoding is all that easy.
I don't know personally anyone who does it and I know a fair bunch of programmers in disparate knowledge domains.
Maybe I just don't know the right guys.I'm not completely ignorant of serving video over HTTP, I'm just not a huge fan of it.
I know it's what the cool kids are doing right now, but it overloads the protocol in a way it wasn't meant to be.
Traffic shaping alone kills the issue for me.
I would much rather have my lightweight text delivered to me over HTTP and then someone else's bandwidth hoarking video over another protocol.
I know everyone talks about the coming bandwidth utopia, but where I am at, we're having significant issues with certain folks (ahem, students) absolutely slamming the Teh Tubes with torrent traffic and videos, so much so that people are having trouble checking email and reading webpages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31016192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010662</id>
	<title>From TFS</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1264957140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However the last patent in the H.264 portfolio expires in 2028, and the MPEG LA has not released what fees, if any, it will charge webmasters after this 'free trial' period is over.</p></div><p>I would SERIOUSLY hope there are new protocols by 2028...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However the last patent in the H.264 portfolio expires in 2028 , and the MPEG LA has not released what fees , if any , it will charge webmasters after this 'free trial ' period is over.I would SERIOUSLY hope there are new protocols by 2028.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However the last patent in the H.264 portfolio expires in 2028, and the MPEG LA has not released what fees, if any, it will charge webmasters after this 'free trial' period is over.I would SERIOUSLY hope there are new protocols by 2028...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012030</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of fallout</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1264962240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However this is a really plain-as-day example of how patent trolls are ruining business for everyone.</p></div><p>Please don't dilute the term "patent troll."  It has a specific meaning and certainly doesn't apply to a patent pool packager like MPEG-LA.  Everybody adopted h.264 with full knowledge that it was covered by several patents.  This is certainly not a case of some junk firm patenting prior art and suing everybody.  Nobody coerced anyone into using h.264; it just happened to actually <i>be</i> a good codec, so it was adopted by the industry.  Nor is it "ruining business for everyone," so I'm not even sure what your point is.  Your own anecdotal evidence doesn't lead to this conclusion.<br> <br>

Is it disappointing that we didn't have a comparable patent-free codec at the time when people started adopting h.264?  Yeah, it's too bad.  Unfortunately, no amount of sour grapes is going to change what happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However this is a really plain-as-day example of how patent trolls are ruining business for everyone.Please do n't dilute the term " patent troll .
" It has a specific meaning and certainly does n't apply to a patent pool packager like MPEG-LA .
Everybody adopted h.264 with full knowledge that it was covered by several patents .
This is certainly not a case of some junk firm patenting prior art and suing everybody .
Nobody coerced anyone into using h.264 ; it just happened to actually be a good codec , so it was adopted by the industry .
Nor is it " ruining business for everyone , " so I 'm not even sure what your point is .
Your own anecdotal evidence does n't lead to this conclusion .
Is it disappointing that we did n't have a comparable patent-free codec at the time when people started adopting h.264 ?
Yeah , it 's too bad .
Unfortunately , no amount of sour grapes is going to change what happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However this is a really plain-as-day example of how patent trolls are ruining business for everyone.Please don't dilute the term "patent troll.
"  It has a specific meaning and certainly doesn't apply to a patent pool packager like MPEG-LA.
Everybody adopted h.264 with full knowledge that it was covered by several patents.
This is certainly not a case of some junk firm patenting prior art and suing everybody.
Nobody coerced anyone into using h.264; it just happened to actually be a good codec, so it was adopted by the industry.
Nor is it "ruining business for everyone," so I'm not even sure what your point is.
Your own anecdotal evidence doesn't lead to this conclusion.
Is it disappointing that we didn't have a comparable patent-free codec at the time when people started adopting h.264?
Yeah, it's too bad.
Unfortunately, no amount of sour grapes is going to change what happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013888</id>
	<title>Re:We keep repeating the same mistakes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like <a href="http://www.icecast.org/" title="icecast.org" rel="nofollow">Icecast</a> [icecast.org], from the makers of Theora and FLAC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like Icecast [ icecast.org ] , from the makers of Theora and FLAC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like Icecast [icecast.org], from the makers of Theora and FLAC?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011378</id>
	<title>They're like drug pushers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"the first hit is free..."</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the first hit is free... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the first hit is free..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013034</id>
	<title>Re:Data transfer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By making you agree to these terms before giving you a license for an encoder/decoder. So the contract to encode, is that you pay to upload what you have produced.
<br> <br>
So if I make a better chip maker, i can license it with fees on the total number of chips produced rather than a fixed fee on the device.
<br> <br>
Patents in this cases cut far further than just the cost of getting a license. Its the fine print that can be put into this license.
<br> <br>Just look at apples products. The terms and conditions means you are not permitted to encode anything with h.264 without an extra license from MPEG LA if you are doing for commercial reasons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By making you agree to these terms before giving you a license for an encoder/decoder .
So the contract to encode , is that you pay to upload what you have produced .
So if I make a better chip maker , i can license it with fees on the total number of chips produced rather than a fixed fee on the device .
Patents in this cases cut far further than just the cost of getting a license .
Its the fine print that can be put into this license .
Just look at apples products .
The terms and conditions means you are not permitted to encode anything with h.264 without an extra license from MPEG LA if you are doing for commercial reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By making you agree to these terms before giving you a license for an encoder/decoder.
So the contract to encode, is that you pay to upload what you have produced.
So if I make a better chip maker, i can license it with fees on the total number of chips produced rather than a fixed fee on the device.
Patents in this cases cut far further than just the cost of getting a license.
Its the fine print that can be put into this license.
Just look at apples products.
The terms and conditions means you are not permitted to encode anything with h.264 without an extra license from MPEG LA if you are doing for commercial reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010900</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1264958040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google seems to be changing video on Youtube to use HTML 5 pretty quickly.  Why can't other people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google seems to be changing video on Youtube to use HTML 5 pretty quickly .
Why ca n't other people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google seems to be changing video on Youtube to use HTML 5 pretty quickly.
Why can't other people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011494</id>
	<title>Good enough</title>
	<author>otuz</author>
	<datestamp>1264960140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This should be good enough to buy some time for alternative codecs. In my opinion the &lt;video&gt; tag should be treated just like the &lt;img&gt; tag, essentially allowing more or less any video file to be specified as the source. How often do you see xpm images as the src of img tags nowadays? It was one of the original image formats.<br>A few years will buy some time for the open source communities to develop some really good codecs.<br>Ogg Theora doesn't really have any benefit over mpeg4/h264 except its license. Its competition is mainly avi/xvid and such previous generation codecs and containers.<br>Let's not hang up on this issue, initial h264 support for video is better than flash and the associated licensing issues of the flash authoring tools and the drawbacks of such a closed proprietary format.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This should be good enough to buy some time for alternative codecs .
In my opinion the tag should be treated just like the tag , essentially allowing more or less any video file to be specified as the source .
How often do you see xpm images as the src of img tags nowadays ?
It was one of the original image formats.A few years will buy some time for the open source communities to develop some really good codecs.Ogg Theora does n't really have any benefit over mpeg4/h264 except its license .
Its competition is mainly avi/xvid and such previous generation codecs and containers.Let 's not hang up on this issue , initial h264 support for video is better than flash and the associated licensing issues of the flash authoring tools and the drawbacks of such a closed proprietary format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should be good enough to buy some time for alternative codecs.
In my opinion the  tag should be treated just like the  tag, essentially allowing more or less any video file to be specified as the source.
How often do you see xpm images as the src of img tags nowadays?
It was one of the original image formats.A few years will buy some time for the open source communities to develop some really good codecs.Ogg Theora doesn't really have any benefit over mpeg4/h264 except its license.
Its competition is mainly avi/xvid and such previous generation codecs and containers.Let's not hang up on this issue, initial h264 support for video is better than flash and the associated licensing issues of the flash authoring tools and the drawbacks of such a closed proprietary format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011222</id>
	<title>Chumming the waters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm a pessimist this morning, but my first reaction to TFS was that it seems like a insidious (but brilliantly profitable) plan to encourage the adoption of their codec as a cornerstone of the next generation of Internet media. When the patent expires, they'll have a feast of (presumably) successful websites and brand names they can draw royalties and other fees from, who are willing to lay exorbitant amounts to keep their infrastructure up rather than forcing redesign and coding.</p><p>Easy way to oblierate anyone they suddenly "disagree" with, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm a pessimist this morning , but my first reaction to TFS was that it seems like a insidious ( but brilliantly profitable ) plan to encourage the adoption of their codec as a cornerstone of the next generation of Internet media .
When the patent expires , they 'll have a feast of ( presumably ) successful websites and brand names they can draw royalties and other fees from , who are willing to lay exorbitant amounts to keep their infrastructure up rather than forcing redesign and coding.Easy way to oblierate anyone they suddenly " disagree " with , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm a pessimist this morning, but my first reaction to TFS was that it seems like a insidious (but brilliantly profitable) plan to encourage the adoption of their codec as a cornerstone of the next generation of Internet media.
When the patent expires, they'll have a feast of (presumably) successful websites and brand names they can draw royalties and other fees from, who are willing to lay exorbitant amounts to keep their infrastructure up rather than forcing redesign and coding.Easy way to oblierate anyone they suddenly "disagree" with, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012026</id>
	<title>Patents expire before and after 2028</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1264962240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep in mind that the H264 standard and how it is implemented are two different things.  Which is good, and bad, as we'll see.

First, patents must be filed within 1 year of public disclose in the US, or before disclosure with PCTs.  So <b>any</b> information you find will be unencumbered no more than 21 years after it was disclosed.  Since H264 was finalized May 2003, the specification cannot be encumbered after 2024.  And many aspects of it (draft specs, for example) will be available to anyone, license free, years before that.  Probably some parts of it even now (though possibly such narrow, arbitrary steps that no one would care).<br> <br>

So the spec is available before 2028, but how about implementing it?<br> <br>

Well, certain <i>implementations</i> will be covered for many years.  In fact, if you come up with a new way to encode or decode H264 today, you can still file a patent.  For example: if you discover that by connecting two wires to a squirrel and sending uncompressed video into the squirrel through one wire results in H264 video out the other wire, that's patentable.  Freaky, weird, but damn well worth a patent.  If you figure out how to do it with a genetically altered squirrel 5000 years from now (hey, you've already go a digital squirrel, let's keep the weirdness going), then you could still get a patent.  5000 years after all the other implementations are free.<br> <br>

What this means is that over time, people will still file new implementations, but the older ones will also be opening up.  Come 2016, there <b>might</b> be a way to do H264 without a patent license if someone clever figures out what pieces are free to use and figures out an alternative to the parts still under patent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind that the H264 standard and how it is implemented are two different things .
Which is good , and bad , as we 'll see .
First , patents must be filed within 1 year of public disclose in the US , or before disclosure with PCTs .
So any information you find will be unencumbered no more than 21 years after it was disclosed .
Since H264 was finalized May 2003 , the specification can not be encumbered after 2024 .
And many aspects of it ( draft specs , for example ) will be available to anyone , license free , years before that .
Probably some parts of it even now ( though possibly such narrow , arbitrary steps that no one would care ) .
So the spec is available before 2028 , but how about implementing it ?
Well , certain implementations will be covered for many years .
In fact , if you come up with a new way to encode or decode H264 today , you can still file a patent .
For example : if you discover that by connecting two wires to a squirrel and sending uncompressed video into the squirrel through one wire results in H264 video out the other wire , that 's patentable .
Freaky , weird , but damn well worth a patent .
If you figure out how to do it with a genetically altered squirrel 5000 years from now ( hey , you 've already go a digital squirrel , let 's keep the weirdness going ) , then you could still get a patent .
5000 years after all the other implementations are free .
What this means is that over time , people will still file new implementations , but the older ones will also be opening up .
Come 2016 , there might be a way to do H264 without a patent license if someone clever figures out what pieces are free to use and figures out an alternative to the parts still under patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind that the H264 standard and how it is implemented are two different things.
Which is good, and bad, as we'll see.
First, patents must be filed within 1 year of public disclose in the US, or before disclosure with PCTs.
So any information you find will be unencumbered no more than 21 years after it was disclosed.
Since H264 was finalized May 2003, the specification cannot be encumbered after 2024.
And many aspects of it (draft specs, for example) will be available to anyone, license free, years before that.
Probably some parts of it even now (though possibly such narrow, arbitrary steps that no one would care).
So the spec is available before 2028, but how about implementing it?
Well, certain implementations will be covered for many years.
In fact, if you come up with a new way to encode or decode H264 today, you can still file a patent.
For example: if you discover that by connecting two wires to a squirrel and sending uncompressed video into the squirrel through one wire results in H264 video out the other wire, that's patentable.
Freaky, weird, but damn well worth a patent.
If you figure out how to do it with a genetically altered squirrel 5000 years from now (hey, you've already go a digital squirrel, let's keep the weirdness going), then you could still get a patent.
5000 years after all the other implementations are free.
What this means is that over time, people will still file new implementations, but the older ones will also be opening up.
Come 2016, there might be a way to do H264 without a patent license if someone clever figures out what pieces are free to use and figures out an alternative to the parts still under patent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264958160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Six years?  Six years is a very long time in CODEC evolution.  Six years makes computers sixteen times faster.  Network connections will be much faster.  By 2016, I doubt there'll be many computers around that can't play back VC-2 (based on Dirac, patent free) in use and VC-2 hardware acceleration, which is just starting to be deployed, will be much more widespread.  Remember the CODECs we were using six years ago?  </p><p>
MPEG-1  didn't last six years as a standard for Internet video.  Neither did RealVideo.  Neither did Sorenson (in QuickTime or Flash containers).  I'd be surprised if H.264 does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Six years ?
Six years is a very long time in CODEC evolution .
Six years makes computers sixteen times faster .
Network connections will be much faster .
By 2016 , I doubt there 'll be many computers around that ca n't play back VC-2 ( based on Dirac , patent free ) in use and VC-2 hardware acceleration , which is just starting to be deployed , will be much more widespread .
Remember the CODECs we were using six years ago ?
MPEG-1 did n't last six years as a standard for Internet video .
Neither did RealVideo .
Neither did Sorenson ( in QuickTime or Flash containers ) .
I 'd be surprised if H.264 does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Six years?
Six years is a very long time in CODEC evolution.
Six years makes computers sixteen times faster.
Network connections will be much faster.
By 2016, I doubt there'll be many computers around that can't play back VC-2 (based on Dirac, patent free) in use and VC-2 hardware acceleration, which is just starting to be deployed, will be much more widespread.
Remember the CODECs we were using six years ago?
MPEG-1  didn't last six years as a standard for Internet video.
Neither did RealVideo.
Neither did Sorenson (in QuickTime or Flash containers).
I'd be surprised if H.264 does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31018780</id>
	<title>Re:Patents expire before and after 2028</title>
	<author>jrincayc</author>
	<datestamp>1264957980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I generally agree with what you are saying, (See my original email on the 2028 year), but 2003 is not the date that matters, since H.264 continues to add substantial amendments:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4\_AVC#Versions" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4\_AVC#Versions</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I generally agree with what you are saying , ( See my original email on the 2028 year ) , but 2003 is not the date that matters , since H.264 continues to add substantial amendments : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4 \ _AVC # Versions [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I generally agree with what you are saying, (See my original email on the 2028 year), but 2003 is not the date that matters, since H.264 continues to add substantial amendments:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4\_AVC#Versions [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31014644</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of fallout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264931400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nor is it "ruining business for everyone,"</p></div><p>Beyond not ruining business for everyone, it's actually helping make business easier for everyone. People seem to think that the MPEG-LA is just a patent-holding organization that licenses its patents without creating any products. But it's really just a bulk licensing organization that's a front for many large companies that do make products. They've set themselves up as the single entity that both deals with licensing and litigation from other patent holders if they feel that H.264 infringes on a patent not included in the license.</p><p>By allowing bulk licensing of the patents in question, the MPEG-LA makes it simple for people who need to use the technology to do so legally. If it were not for them, you'd need to individually license all the patents in question and you'd still run the risk of being sued for infringing on patents that you didn't license. But with a license from the MPEG-LA, you're completely covered and can go about your business without fear of patent litigation.</p><p>As much as people here like to promote the Ogg family of codecs, the above cannot be said for choosing to use these codecs in your product. There's a reason why large companies that have the resources to make themselves attractive targets to patent-holders are choosing to license H.264 rather than use the free option. As soon as the potential payoff makes it worthwhile, that company will be sued and will be forced to defend itself. Whether it does so successfully or not is anyone's guess, but it will happen.</p><p>Going the MPEG-LA route means choosing fixed, predictable costs and using technology that is currently the best available. As a business, those are the characteristics you look for, even if the cost is a bit higher than it's likely to be going a different route.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nor is it " ruining business for everyone , " Beyond not ruining business for everyone , it 's actually helping make business easier for everyone .
People seem to think that the MPEG-LA is just a patent-holding organization that licenses its patents without creating any products .
But it 's really just a bulk licensing organization that 's a front for many large companies that do make products .
They 've set themselves up as the single entity that both deals with licensing and litigation from other patent holders if they feel that H.264 infringes on a patent not included in the license.By allowing bulk licensing of the patents in question , the MPEG-LA makes it simple for people who need to use the technology to do so legally .
If it were not for them , you 'd need to individually license all the patents in question and you 'd still run the risk of being sued for infringing on patents that you did n't license .
But with a license from the MPEG-LA , you 're completely covered and can go about your business without fear of patent litigation.As much as people here like to promote the Ogg family of codecs , the above can not be said for choosing to use these codecs in your product .
There 's a reason why large companies that have the resources to make themselves attractive targets to patent-holders are choosing to license H.264 rather than use the free option .
As soon as the potential payoff makes it worthwhile , that company will be sued and will be forced to defend itself .
Whether it does so successfully or not is anyone 's guess , but it will happen.Going the MPEG-LA route means choosing fixed , predictable costs and using technology that is currently the best available .
As a business , those are the characteristics you look for , even if the cost is a bit higher than it 's likely to be going a different route .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nor is it "ruining business for everyone,"Beyond not ruining business for everyone, it's actually helping make business easier for everyone.
People seem to think that the MPEG-LA is just a patent-holding organization that licenses its patents without creating any products.
But it's really just a bulk licensing organization that's a front for many large companies that do make products.
They've set themselves up as the single entity that both deals with licensing and litigation from other patent holders if they feel that H.264 infringes on a patent not included in the license.By allowing bulk licensing of the patents in question, the MPEG-LA makes it simple for people who need to use the technology to do so legally.
If it were not for them, you'd need to individually license all the patents in question and you'd still run the risk of being sued for infringing on patents that you didn't license.
But with a license from the MPEG-LA, you're completely covered and can go about your business without fear of patent litigation.As much as people here like to promote the Ogg family of codecs, the above cannot be said for choosing to use these codecs in your product.
There's a reason why large companies that have the resources to make themselves attractive targets to patent-holders are choosing to license H.264 rather than use the free option.
As soon as the potential payoff makes it worthwhile, that company will be sued and will be forced to defend itself.
Whether it does so successfully or not is anyone's guess, but it will happen.Going the MPEG-LA route means choosing fixed, predictable costs and using technology that is currently the best available.
As a business, those are the characteristics you look for, even if the cost is a bit higher than it's likely to be going a different route.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011050</id>
	<title>Tried &amp; True business model...</title>
	<author>PPalmgren</author>
	<datestamp>1264958460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first hit is free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first hit is free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first hit is free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31033996</id>
	<title>Re:We keep repeating the same mistakes</title>
	<author>Thundersnatch</author>
	<datestamp>1265382540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Streaming video needs an Apache</p></div></blockquote><p>Per Slashdot tradition, I will pick on your analogy a bit, because I can't argue with most of the rest you wrote. We already already have the Apache for video... and it is: Apache. And IIS. And nginx, lighttpd, etc.</p><p> <a href="http://www.movenetworks.com/move-media-services/move-adaptive-streaming" title="movenetworks.com">Move Networks</a> [movenetworks.com] and <a href="http://www.iis.net/expand/smoothstreaming" title="iis.net">Microsoft</a> [iis.net] have shown that the best way to do streaming in today's internet is via HTTP, while chunking the video into variable bit-rate segments. This allows easy caching of video fragments via CDNs or even Squid-style caching proxies at ISPs, universities, etc. Yes, you can do live streaming this way, and the Move Networks/Limelight Oprah event streamed to something like 1M viewers simultaneously.</p><p>Of course Move Networks has this patented this up the wazzu, and I imagine Microsoft has some of their implementation patented as well. But the actual chunking of video files is pretty obvious, and there's lots of prior art, so I imagine their specific patents can be avoided by an open standard.</p><p>So we don't really need an <i>Apache</i> for video, the distribution problem isn't hard, and we already have Apache.
</p><p> What we need is the content generation toolchain, as you describe later. So we really need the Eclipse/gcc/Spring analogues for video. A free-and-open codec, file formats, and widely distributed players. As you state, the hardest of all these is the codec. I took a fair bit of maths and even some CG and DSP classes back in the day, and I can barely understand how MPEG-2 works, let alone something like H.264.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Streaming video needs an ApachePer Slashdot tradition , I will pick on your analogy a bit , because I ca n't argue with most of the rest you wrote .
We already already have the Apache for video... and it is : Apache .
And IIS .
And nginx , lighttpd , etc .
Move Networks [ movenetworks.com ] and Microsoft [ iis.net ] have shown that the best way to do streaming in today 's internet is via HTTP , while chunking the video into variable bit-rate segments .
This allows easy caching of video fragments via CDNs or even Squid-style caching proxies at ISPs , universities , etc .
Yes , you can do live streaming this way , and the Move Networks/Limelight Oprah event streamed to something like 1M viewers simultaneously.Of course Move Networks has this patented this up the wazzu , and I imagine Microsoft has some of their implementation patented as well .
But the actual chunking of video files is pretty obvious , and there 's lots of prior art , so I imagine their specific patents can be avoided by an open standard.So we do n't really need an Apache for video , the distribution problem is n't hard , and we already have Apache .
What we need is the content generation toolchain , as you describe later .
So we really need the Eclipse/gcc/Spring analogues for video .
A free-and-open codec , file formats , and widely distributed players .
As you state , the hardest of all these is the codec .
I took a fair bit of maths and even some CG and DSP classes back in the day , and I can barely understand how MPEG-2 works , let alone something like H.264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Streaming video needs an ApachePer Slashdot tradition, I will pick on your analogy a bit, because I can't argue with most of the rest you wrote.
We already already have the Apache for video... and it is: Apache.
And IIS.
And nginx, lighttpd, etc.
Move Networks [movenetworks.com] and Microsoft [iis.net] have shown that the best way to do streaming in today's internet is via HTTP, while chunking the video into variable bit-rate segments.
This allows easy caching of video fragments via CDNs or even Squid-style caching proxies at ISPs, universities, etc.
Yes, you can do live streaming this way, and the Move Networks/Limelight Oprah event streamed to something like 1M viewers simultaneously.Of course Move Networks has this patented this up the wazzu, and I imagine Microsoft has some of their implementation patented as well.
But the actual chunking of video files is pretty obvious, and there's lots of prior art, so I imagine their specific patents can be avoided by an open standard.So we don't really need an Apache for video, the distribution problem isn't hard, and we already have Apache.
What we need is the content generation toolchain, as you describe later.
So we really need the Eclipse/gcc/Spring analogues for video.
A free-and-open codec, file formats, and widely distributed players.
As you state, the hardest of all these is the codec.
I took a fair bit of maths and even some CG and DSP classes back in the day, and I can barely understand how MPEG-2 works, let alone something like H.264.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010978</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264958220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google seems to be changing video on Youtube to use HTML 5 pretty quickly.  Why can't other people?</p></div><p>Because they feared the charges in 2011.</p><p>Now they can fear the charges in 2016 instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google seems to be changing video on Youtube to use HTML 5 pretty quickly .
Why ca n't other people ? Because they feared the charges in 2011.Now they can fear the charges in 2016 instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google seems to be changing video on Youtube to use HTML 5 pretty quickly.
Why can't other people?Because they feared the charges in 2011.Now they can fear the charges in 2016 instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012726</id>
	<title>Re:SS H.264 submarine patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>someone please tag this story "itsatrap"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>someone please tag this story " itsatrap "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someone please tag this story "itsatrap"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011540</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>Sir Homer</author>
	<datestamp>1264960320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's worth noting none of those formats where ever pushed as an Internet standard. We still use JPEG/GIF even though there are better formats out there for over a decade. Sometimes being "industry accepted" is more important then being "the best".</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth noting none of those formats where ever pushed as an Internet standard .
We still use JPEG/GIF even though there are better formats out there for over a decade .
Sometimes being " industry accepted " is more important then being " the best " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth noting none of those formats where ever pushed as an Internet standard.
We still use JPEG/GIF even though there are better formats out there for over a decade.
Sometimes being "industry accepted" is more important then being "the best".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011658</id>
	<title>Won't matter much anyway</title>
	<author>kill-1</author>
	<datestamp>1264960800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google will open source VP8 from On2 in a few months, and H.264 will soon be history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will open source VP8 from On2 in a few months , and H.264 will soon be history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will open source VP8 from On2 in a few months, and H.264 will soon be history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012114</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1264962480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember the CODECs we were using six years ago?</p></div><p>If you count DivX<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) 3.11 alpha as MPEG4 ASP compliant which isn't quite true but later DivX/Xvid versions were, we've been using the same codec since 1998 only slowly phasing it out with H.264. As for VC-2, there's no wikipedia page for it, the first hit on google has nothing to do with it, the fifth hit is a blog post from 2008 where the last comment says it'll be a near lossless production/archival codec unsuitable for Internet use. So if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary, I guess you could be surprised but none of the rest will be surprised if H.264 lasts...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember the CODECs we were using six years ago ? If you count DivX ; - ) 3.11 alpha as MPEG4 ASP compliant which is n't quite true but later DivX/Xvid versions were , we 've been using the same codec since 1998 only slowly phasing it out with H.264 .
As for VC-2 , there 's no wikipedia page for it , the first hit on google has nothing to do with it , the fifth hit is a blog post from 2008 where the last comment says it 'll be a near lossless production/archival codec unsuitable for Internet use .
So if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary , I guess you could be surprised but none of the rest will be surprised if H.264 lasts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember the CODECs we were using six years ago?If you count DivX ;-) 3.11 alpha as MPEG4 ASP compliant which isn't quite true but later DivX/Xvid versions were, we've been using the same codec since 1998 only slowly phasing it out with H.264.
As for VC-2, there's no wikipedia page for it, the first hit on google has nothing to do with it, the fifth hit is a blog post from 2008 where the last comment says it'll be a near lossless production/archival codec unsuitable for Internet use.
So if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary, I guess you could be surprised but none of the rest will be surprised if H.264 lasts...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010930</id>
	<title>its...</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1264958160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a trap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>a trap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a trap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010920</id>
	<title>documenting H.264 on http://en.swpat.org</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1264958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The MPEG patent thicket is a prime example of the real problem of software patents.  If I want to write a video player, it has to play the formats that people encode videos in.  The veto power of patents equates to the right to prohibit me, and everyone, from writing a functional video player. I think I already have pretty good info, but there's loads more of this story to tell.  Help really appreciated in documenting this:</p><ul><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG\_video\_formats" title="swpat.org">MPEG video formats (including H.264)</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm\_to\_standards" title="swpat.org">Harm to standards</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/HTML5\_and\_video\_patents" title="swpat.org">HTML5 and video patents</a> [swpat.org] </li></ul><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    The MPEG patent thicket is a prime example of the real problem of software patents .
If I want to write a video player , it has to play the formats that people encode videos in .
The veto power of patents equates to the right to prohibit me , and everyone , from writing a functional video player .
I think I already have pretty good info , but there 's loads more of this story to tell .
Help really appreciated in documenting this : MPEG video formats ( including H.264 ) [ swpat.org ] Harm to standards [ swpat.org ] HTML5 and video patents [ swpat.org ]     swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    The MPEG patent thicket is a prime example of the real problem of software patents.
If I want to write a video player, it has to play the formats that people encode videos in.
The veto power of patents equates to the right to prohibit me, and everyone, from writing a functional video player.
I think I already have pretty good info, but there's loads more of this story to tell.
Help really appreciated in documenting this: MPEG video formats (including H.264) [swpat.org]  Harm to standards [swpat.org]  HTML5 and video patents [swpat.org] 
    swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012098</id>
	<title>We keep repeating the same mistakes</title>
	<author>adipocere</author>
	<datestamp>1264962420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Streaming video needs an Apache.  By that, I mean a very standardized server and set of protocols for delivering files encoded in a non-proprietary, free-to-use, free-to-decode, unrestricted-in-every-imaginable-sense manner.</p><p>The source of what has held this back, in my opinion, is that taking giant video files (and you should see how big raw video is) and cramming them down into small, chunkable files which can decode at the end into recognizable images is hard.  Hard in the sense of "takes people with a great deal of math knowledge and computer science knowledge to pull off."  It's not like HTML, where you are pushing around what are basically text files that you can open in Notepad.  It takes a great deal of intellectual know-how and deep domain knowledge to pull this off on the encoding end in some reasonable fashion that doesn't take a lot of CPU cycles.</p><p>The few people who can do this take a long time to figure out a new scheme, and they have to test the living hell out of it.  You can write a primitive webserver without too much fuss, it's just a specialized server which kicks out text and binary files on command, after all.  Encoding video and serving it, though, is not easy.  That's why so much goes into protecting the intellectual property; it was not trivial to create.  Wade around in the fifteen profiles for MPEG-4 Part 10 aka AVC aka H.264 for a while and realize that this is not trivial.  Hell, it had to be jointly developed by two groups, ITU's video group and MPEG.  Take a look at Theora -- even its codebase is descended from something that once took real money to make.</p><p>If streaming media is to have its Apache, an investment of money must be made in finding these highly talented individuals and paying them to make a new, open standard.  And code must be made available for an end-to-end implementation on many platforms, everything from encoding to serving (with authentication fun, to boot) to decoding, on Windows, on Unix/Linux, on Macs.  With regression tests and tutorials.  Plug-ins to be written for the top, say, ten browsers.  And a decoder library for Flash.  While this is going on, political battles will have to be fought to keep Microsoft, Apple, and other companies out of the loop, or they'll pull the usual and destroy or cripple the product before it reaches market, just as they managed to poison HTML5's video standards.</p><p>None of this is technically impossible, but it will be hard, and it will cost money and political tokens and time and real effort. Can it be done?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Streaming video needs an Apache .
By that , I mean a very standardized server and set of protocols for delivering files encoded in a non-proprietary , free-to-use , free-to-decode , unrestricted-in-every-imaginable-sense manner.The source of what has held this back , in my opinion , is that taking giant video files ( and you should see how big raw video is ) and cramming them down into small , chunkable files which can decode at the end into recognizable images is hard .
Hard in the sense of " takes people with a great deal of math knowledge and computer science knowledge to pull off .
" It 's not like HTML , where you are pushing around what are basically text files that you can open in Notepad .
It takes a great deal of intellectual know-how and deep domain knowledge to pull this off on the encoding end in some reasonable fashion that does n't take a lot of CPU cycles.The few people who can do this take a long time to figure out a new scheme , and they have to test the living hell out of it .
You can write a primitive webserver without too much fuss , it 's just a specialized server which kicks out text and binary files on command , after all .
Encoding video and serving it , though , is not easy .
That 's why so much goes into protecting the intellectual property ; it was not trivial to create .
Wade around in the fifteen profiles for MPEG-4 Part 10 aka AVC aka H.264 for a while and realize that this is not trivial .
Hell , it had to be jointly developed by two groups , ITU 's video group and MPEG .
Take a look at Theora -- even its codebase is descended from something that once took real money to make.If streaming media is to have its Apache , an investment of money must be made in finding these highly talented individuals and paying them to make a new , open standard .
And code must be made available for an end-to-end implementation on many platforms , everything from encoding to serving ( with authentication fun , to boot ) to decoding , on Windows , on Unix/Linux , on Macs .
With regression tests and tutorials .
Plug-ins to be written for the top , say , ten browsers .
And a decoder library for Flash .
While this is going on , political battles will have to be fought to keep Microsoft , Apple , and other companies out of the loop , or they 'll pull the usual and destroy or cripple the product before it reaches market , just as they managed to poison HTML5 's video standards.None of this is technically impossible , but it will be hard , and it will cost money and political tokens and time and real effort .
Can it be done ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Streaming video needs an Apache.
By that, I mean a very standardized server and set of protocols for delivering files encoded in a non-proprietary, free-to-use, free-to-decode, unrestricted-in-every-imaginable-sense manner.The source of what has held this back, in my opinion, is that taking giant video files (and you should see how big raw video is) and cramming them down into small, chunkable files which can decode at the end into recognizable images is hard.
Hard in the sense of "takes people with a great deal of math knowledge and computer science knowledge to pull off.
"  It's not like HTML, where you are pushing around what are basically text files that you can open in Notepad.
It takes a great deal of intellectual know-how and deep domain knowledge to pull this off on the encoding end in some reasonable fashion that doesn't take a lot of CPU cycles.The few people who can do this take a long time to figure out a new scheme, and they have to test the living hell out of it.
You can write a primitive webserver without too much fuss, it's just a specialized server which kicks out text and binary files on command, after all.
Encoding video and serving it, though, is not easy.
That's why so much goes into protecting the intellectual property; it was not trivial to create.
Wade around in the fifteen profiles for MPEG-4 Part 10 aka AVC aka H.264 for a while and realize that this is not trivial.
Hell, it had to be jointly developed by two groups, ITU's video group and MPEG.
Take a look at Theora -- even its codebase is descended from something that once took real money to make.If streaming media is to have its Apache, an investment of money must be made in finding these highly talented individuals and paying them to make a new, open standard.
And code must be made available for an end-to-end implementation on many platforms, everything from encoding to serving (with authentication fun, to boot) to decoding, on Windows, on Unix/Linux, on Macs.
With regression tests and tutorials.
Plug-ins to be written for the top, say, ten browsers.
And a decoder library for Flash.
While this is going on, political battles will have to be fought to keep Microsoft, Apple, and other companies out of the loop, or they'll pull the usual and destroy or cripple the product before it reaches market, just as they managed to poison HTML5's video standards.None of this is technically impossible, but it will be hard, and it will cost money and political tokens and time and real effort.
Can it be done?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011006</id>
	<title>Re:From TFS</title>
	<author>alvinrod</author>
	<datestamp>1264958340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.265" title="wikipedia.org">H.265</a> [wikipedia.org] has an estimated release of 2012. We're just trading on MPEG LA standard for another, but they may offer free licensing of it for a while as well. Personally, I don't think they should be able to charge content providers squat. They can sell users an encoder and charge for decoders in products, but what anyone does after that shouldn't be any business of the MPEG LA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>H.265 [ wikipedia.org ] has an estimated release of 2012 .
We 're just trading on MPEG LA standard for another , but they may offer free licensing of it for a while as well .
Personally , I do n't think they should be able to charge content providers squat .
They can sell users an encoder and charge for decoders in products , but what anyone does after that should n't be any business of the MPEG LA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H.265 [wikipedia.org] has an estimated release of 2012.
We're just trading on MPEG LA standard for another, but they may offer free licensing of it for a while as well.
Personally, I don't think they should be able to charge content providers squat.
They can sell users an encoder and charge for decoders in products, but what anyone does after that shouldn't be any business of the MPEG LA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31016192</id>
	<title>Re:We keep repeating the same mistakes</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1264938360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Streaming video needs an Apache. By that, I mean a very standardized server and set of protocols for delivering files encoded in a non-proprietary, free-to-use, free-to-decode, unrestricted-in-every-imaginable-sense manner.</p></div></blockquote><p>There is one big problem with this.  Every video provider WANTS their walled-garden.  I've worked in the business, I'm certain this is (almost exclusively) the case.</p><p>You could have the 100\% free format in-hand, hand it to the Hulu management, and the #1 question will be "Does that mean people will be able to download our videos?"  Near-sighted as it is, control of the viewer is paramount.  You don't get ad views if the user can download the video once, and watch it 100 times, or if they can access it via Boxee, or some other direct feed.  RealMedia was popular for years precisely because their (inferior) proprietary format offered that kind of control to the provider.</p><blockquote><div><p>Encoding video and serving it, though, is not easy. That's why so much goes into protecting the intellectual property; it was not trivial to create. Wade around in the fifteen profiles for MPEG-4 Part 10 aka AVC aka H.264 for a while and realize that this is not trivial.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's partially true, but largely a complete misunderstanding of the history of video encoding...</p><p>Video really started with the JPEG.  Sub-sample the chroma, break it into blocks, run it through DCT, quantize it, then huffman-code it.  At high bitrates, as found on DVDs, MJPEG (just a series of JPEG images) is actually surpisingly competitive with real video standards. Then you go to MPEG-1, which added the concept of differential images (P/B-frames), and motion compensation on top of JPEG compression.  Once the world got to that point, video compression was pretty much done...  all the low-hanging fruit were taken, and the sum total gives us something like 75\% (educated guess) of the theoretical maximum possible compression without discernible visual artifacts.</p><p>That was over 20 years ago.  Since then, MPEG-2, MPEG-4 ASP (Divx) have been rehashes of the same old tech, with absolutely trivial changes.  The same is true for just about all proprietary codecs as well, from RealVideo codecs, to WMV, to Flash video, and yes, even Theora, all are based on the same thing.  Somewhat complex and difficult in it's inception, but ever since, a solved problems so easy a 10 year-old could write-up a new video format.</p><p>With H.264, there are a few minor tech improvements that allow you to perhaps squeeze 10\% better efficiency out of it, at the expense of massive CPU usage on both ends, and even that only at low bitrates.  But that's really all it offers.  Sure, it was a lot of work for the committee to all agree, and to do the testing to prove everything out, but really, all it added was deblocking, which allows you to make a low-bitrate video that's just fuzzy instead of breaking apart at the seams with blockiness, so it looks less terrible when used by those who don't know what they're doing...</p><p>In short, writing a video standard is not remotely as complex as you make it out to be.  In fact the real magic is in the numerous parties around the world who go to great lengths to write a codec based on the format that squeezes every last possible bit of efficiency out of the format, and that can be done just as well with MPEG-1 as it can with JPEG.  And Xvid, libavcodec, and x264 show the "free" world is at least as good at it as companies with a truck-load of money to throw at it.  And even more significantly, early codecs like MPEG-1 have lost their patent protection, and so can just be used directly.  In fact it's been royalty-free to implement an MPEG-1 decoder for so long, that practically all video player software supports it by default, and most hardware supports it as well.  If your browser has ANY plugin that can play video, 99\% chance one or all of them also handle MPEG-1.  Why the horribly inefficient and CPU-heavy Theora was tossed around for the HTML video standard, and MPEG-1 was not, is beyond me... but I digress.</p><p>That brings us to #2.  The OTHER reason nothing usurps the standard codec is simply because of economies of scale.  A MPEG decoder chip will be used across industries, across the world.  Everybody makes one, and starts cranking them out as fast as they possibly can, so they end us in every DVD player, iPhone, etc. etc.  A one-off codec is vastly more expensive because the economics just aren't there.  It needs to come into the world with everyone behind it, in order to make headway, and that's what MPEG and ITU bring to the table, really.  All the failed audio codecs from various companies were just incorporated, wholesale, into H.264, and since it's a standard, people are suddenly falling over themselves to use what they didn't even want before...</p><p>And as for the other component of your comment, there is a standard for video streaming, and it is, in-fact, Apache.  With video sites like YouTube, a streaming server would be pointless, so the videos are "streamed" (progressively-downloaded) from the HTTP server directly, something which, again, every browser plugin on the planet will handle.  For actual streaming media, thanks to Nullsoft, we have Shoutcast, and the free Icecast, which implement real audio/video streaming protocols on top of a slightly modified HTTP.  And that's not even mentioning the ANCIENT RTP streaming protocol which has been around for, what, 30 years now?</p><p>To answer the rhetorical flourish at the end, not only can it be done, but it will just naturally happen, as bandwidth increase to the point that everyone can stream multiple videos simultaneous, and ceases to care that the format they're using is marginally less efficient than it could possibly be.  This is basically what happened with MP3s, as dial-up, then broadband speeds increased and that tinny-sounding RealAudio file wasn't looking so good anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Streaming video needs an Apache .
By that , I mean a very standardized server and set of protocols for delivering files encoded in a non-proprietary , free-to-use , free-to-decode , unrestricted-in-every-imaginable-sense manner.There is one big problem with this .
Every video provider WANTS their walled-garden .
I 've worked in the business , I 'm certain this is ( almost exclusively ) the case.You could have the 100 \ % free format in-hand , hand it to the Hulu management , and the # 1 question will be " Does that mean people will be able to download our videos ?
" Near-sighted as it is , control of the viewer is paramount .
You do n't get ad views if the user can download the video once , and watch it 100 times , or if they can access it via Boxee , or some other direct feed .
RealMedia was popular for years precisely because their ( inferior ) proprietary format offered that kind of control to the provider.Encoding video and serving it , though , is not easy .
That 's why so much goes into protecting the intellectual property ; it was not trivial to create .
Wade around in the fifteen profiles for MPEG-4 Part 10 aka AVC aka H.264 for a while and realize that this is not trivial.That 's partially true , but largely a complete misunderstanding of the history of video encoding...Video really started with the JPEG .
Sub-sample the chroma , break it into blocks , run it through DCT , quantize it , then huffman-code it .
At high bitrates , as found on DVDs , MJPEG ( just a series of JPEG images ) is actually surpisingly competitive with real video standards .
Then you go to MPEG-1 , which added the concept of differential images ( P/B-frames ) , and motion compensation on top of JPEG compression .
Once the world got to that point , video compression was pretty much done... all the low-hanging fruit were taken , and the sum total gives us something like 75 \ % ( educated guess ) of the theoretical maximum possible compression without discernible visual artifacts.That was over 20 years ago .
Since then , MPEG-2 , MPEG-4 ASP ( Divx ) have been rehashes of the same old tech , with absolutely trivial changes .
The same is true for just about all proprietary codecs as well , from RealVideo codecs , to WMV , to Flash video , and yes , even Theora , all are based on the same thing .
Somewhat complex and difficult in it 's inception , but ever since , a solved problems so easy a 10 year-old could write-up a new video format.With H.264 , there are a few minor tech improvements that allow you to perhaps squeeze 10 \ % better efficiency out of it , at the expense of massive CPU usage on both ends , and even that only at low bitrates .
But that 's really all it offers .
Sure , it was a lot of work for the committee to all agree , and to do the testing to prove everything out , but really , all it added was deblocking , which allows you to make a low-bitrate video that 's just fuzzy instead of breaking apart at the seams with blockiness , so it looks less terrible when used by those who do n't know what they 're doing...In short , writing a video standard is not remotely as complex as you make it out to be .
In fact the real magic is in the numerous parties around the world who go to great lengths to write a codec based on the format that squeezes every last possible bit of efficiency out of the format , and that can be done just as well with MPEG-1 as it can with JPEG .
And Xvid , libavcodec , and x264 show the " free " world is at least as good at it as companies with a truck-load of money to throw at it .
And even more significantly , early codecs like MPEG-1 have lost their patent protection , and so can just be used directly .
In fact it 's been royalty-free to implement an MPEG-1 decoder for so long , that practically all video player software supports it by default , and most hardware supports it as well .
If your browser has ANY plugin that can play video , 99 \ % chance one or all of them also handle MPEG-1 .
Why the horribly inefficient and CPU-heavy Theora was tossed around for the HTML video standard , and MPEG-1 was not , is beyond me... but I digress.That brings us to # 2 .
The OTHER reason nothing usurps the standard codec is simply because of economies of scale .
A MPEG decoder chip will be used across industries , across the world .
Everybody makes one , and starts cranking them out as fast as they possibly can , so they end us in every DVD player , iPhone , etc .
etc. A one-off codec is vastly more expensive because the economics just are n't there .
It needs to come into the world with everyone behind it , in order to make headway , and that 's what MPEG and ITU bring to the table , really .
All the failed audio codecs from various companies were just incorporated , wholesale , into H.264 , and since it 's a standard , people are suddenly falling over themselves to use what they did n't even want before...And as for the other component of your comment , there is a standard for video streaming , and it is , in-fact , Apache .
With video sites like YouTube , a streaming server would be pointless , so the videos are " streamed " ( progressively-downloaded ) from the HTTP server directly , something which , again , every browser plugin on the planet will handle .
For actual streaming media , thanks to Nullsoft , we have Shoutcast , and the free Icecast , which implement real audio/video streaming protocols on top of a slightly modified HTTP .
And that 's not even mentioning the ANCIENT RTP streaming protocol which has been around for , what , 30 years now ? To answer the rhetorical flourish at the end , not only can it be done , but it will just naturally happen , as bandwidth increase to the point that everyone can stream multiple videos simultaneous , and ceases to care that the format they 're using is marginally less efficient than it could possibly be .
This is basically what happened with MP3s , as dial-up , then broadband speeds increased and that tinny-sounding RealAudio file was n't looking so good anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Streaming video needs an Apache.
By that, I mean a very standardized server and set of protocols for delivering files encoded in a non-proprietary, free-to-use, free-to-decode, unrestricted-in-every-imaginable-sense manner.There is one big problem with this.
Every video provider WANTS their walled-garden.
I've worked in the business, I'm certain this is (almost exclusively) the case.You could have the 100\% free format in-hand, hand it to the Hulu management, and the #1 question will be "Does that mean people will be able to download our videos?
"  Near-sighted as it is, control of the viewer is paramount.
You don't get ad views if the user can download the video once, and watch it 100 times, or if they can access it via Boxee, or some other direct feed.
RealMedia was popular for years precisely because their (inferior) proprietary format offered that kind of control to the provider.Encoding video and serving it, though, is not easy.
That's why so much goes into protecting the intellectual property; it was not trivial to create.
Wade around in the fifteen profiles for MPEG-4 Part 10 aka AVC aka H.264 for a while and realize that this is not trivial.That's partially true, but largely a complete misunderstanding of the history of video encoding...Video really started with the JPEG.
Sub-sample the chroma, break it into blocks, run it through DCT, quantize it, then huffman-code it.
At high bitrates, as found on DVDs, MJPEG (just a series of JPEG images) is actually surpisingly competitive with real video standards.
Then you go to MPEG-1, which added the concept of differential images (P/B-frames), and motion compensation on top of JPEG compression.
Once the world got to that point, video compression was pretty much done...  all the low-hanging fruit were taken, and the sum total gives us something like 75\% (educated guess) of the theoretical maximum possible compression without discernible visual artifacts.That was over 20 years ago.
Since then, MPEG-2, MPEG-4 ASP (Divx) have been rehashes of the same old tech, with absolutely trivial changes.
The same is true for just about all proprietary codecs as well, from RealVideo codecs, to WMV, to Flash video, and yes, even Theora, all are based on the same thing.
Somewhat complex and difficult in it's inception, but ever since, a solved problems so easy a 10 year-old could write-up a new video format.With H.264, there are a few minor tech improvements that allow you to perhaps squeeze 10\% better efficiency out of it, at the expense of massive CPU usage on both ends, and even that only at low bitrates.
But that's really all it offers.
Sure, it was a lot of work for the committee to all agree, and to do the testing to prove everything out, but really, all it added was deblocking, which allows you to make a low-bitrate video that's just fuzzy instead of breaking apart at the seams with blockiness, so it looks less terrible when used by those who don't know what they're doing...In short, writing a video standard is not remotely as complex as you make it out to be.
In fact the real magic is in the numerous parties around the world who go to great lengths to write a codec based on the format that squeezes every last possible bit of efficiency out of the format, and that can be done just as well with MPEG-1 as it can with JPEG.
And Xvid, libavcodec, and x264 show the "free" world is at least as good at it as companies with a truck-load of money to throw at it.
And even more significantly, early codecs like MPEG-1 have lost their patent protection, and so can just be used directly.
In fact it's been royalty-free to implement an MPEG-1 decoder for so long, that practically all video player software supports it by default, and most hardware supports it as well.
If your browser has ANY plugin that can play video, 99\% chance one or all of them also handle MPEG-1.
Why the horribly inefficient and CPU-heavy Theora was tossed around for the HTML video standard, and MPEG-1 was not, is beyond me... but I digress.That brings us to #2.
The OTHER reason nothing usurps the standard codec is simply because of economies of scale.
A MPEG decoder chip will be used across industries, across the world.
Everybody makes one, and starts cranking them out as fast as they possibly can, so they end us in every DVD player, iPhone, etc.
etc.  A one-off codec is vastly more expensive because the economics just aren't there.
It needs to come into the world with everyone behind it, in order to make headway, and that's what MPEG and ITU bring to the table, really.
All the failed audio codecs from various companies were just incorporated, wholesale, into H.264, and since it's a standard, people are suddenly falling over themselves to use what they didn't even want before...And as for the other component of your comment, there is a standard for video streaming, and it is, in-fact, Apache.
With video sites like YouTube, a streaming server would be pointless, so the videos are "streamed" (progressively-downloaded) from the HTTP server directly, something which, again, every browser plugin on the planet will handle.
For actual streaming media, thanks to Nullsoft, we have Shoutcast, and the free Icecast, which implement real audio/video streaming protocols on top of a slightly modified HTTP.
And that's not even mentioning the ANCIENT RTP streaming protocol which has been around for, what, 30 years now?To answer the rhetorical flourish at the end, not only can it be done, but it will just naturally happen, as bandwidth increase to the point that everyone can stream multiple videos simultaneous, and ceases to care that the format they're using is marginally less efficient than it could possibly be.
This is basically what happened with MP3s, as dial-up, then broadband speeds increased and that tinny-sounding RealAudio file wasn't looking so good anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010668</id>
	<title>Firefox Bait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trial period will need to last just long enough to get it adopted as the HTML5 standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trial period will need to last just long enough to get it adopted as the HTML5 standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trial period will need to last just long enough to get it adopted as the HTML5 standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011180</id>
	<title>Re:Data transfer?</title>
	<author>Looce</author>
	<datestamp>1264959000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How does a patent license allow you to charge for transmitting data over the Internet?</i></p><p>Simple: it doesn't. However, it's a good measure of how much revenue MPEG LA expects you to be bringing in from your use of their standards, and as such is a nice way to scale up licensing fees according to your revenue.</p><p>Think of it as a way of implementing this rule: <i>You give us X \% of the revenue you bring in from your use of our standard, and in exchange, you can use our standard. If the <b>main</b> use of your company is to deliver solutions based on our standard, this will be X \% of your revenue. If you only make incidental use of our standard, your license is going to cost you lower.</i></p><p>(And, of course, if you find something else that's good enough for your purposes and is free or costs less than our standard, you're free to use it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does a patent license allow you to charge for transmitting data over the Internet ? Simple : it does n't .
However , it 's a good measure of how much revenue MPEG LA expects you to be bringing in from your use of their standards , and as such is a nice way to scale up licensing fees according to your revenue.Think of it as a way of implementing this rule : You give us X \ % of the revenue you bring in from your use of our standard , and in exchange , you can use our standard .
If the main use of your company is to deliver solutions based on our standard , this will be X \ % of your revenue .
If you only make incidental use of our standard , your license is going to cost you lower .
( And , of course , if you find something else that 's good enough for your purposes and is free or costs less than our standard , you 're free to use it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does a patent license allow you to charge for transmitting data over the Internet?Simple: it doesn't.
However, it's a good measure of how much revenue MPEG LA expects you to be bringing in from your use of their standards, and as such is a nice way to scale up licensing fees according to your revenue.Think of it as a way of implementing this rule: You give us X \% of the revenue you bring in from your use of our standard, and in exchange, you can use our standard.
If the main use of your company is to deliver solutions based on our standard, this will be X \% of your revenue.
If you only make incidental use of our standard, your license is going to cost you lower.
(And, of course, if you find something else that's good enough for your purposes and is free or costs less than our standard, you're free to use it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010680</id>
	<title>Hopefully,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'll be using free codecs by then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll be using free codecs by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll be using free codecs by then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012266</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>Kohlrabi82</author>
	<datestamp>1264963020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People still use Xvid, which is nearly 8 years old.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People still use Xvid , which is nearly 8 years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People still use Xvid, which is nearly 8 years old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013118</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of fallout</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1264967040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However this is a really plain-as-day example of how patent trolls are ruining business for everyone.</i></p><p>Really, what's your beef? This is precisely what the system was designed to do.. to keep the small fry independents from muscling in on the big boys' territory. I must say, it's working marvelously. Patent trolls are part of the show. Don't blame them for exploiting a corrupt system. You don't get rich without stepping on some peoples' toes. It's the nature of the beast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However this is a really plain-as-day example of how patent trolls are ruining business for everyone.Really , what 's your beef ?
This is precisely what the system was designed to do.. to keep the small fry independents from muscling in on the big boys ' territory .
I must say , it 's working marvelously .
Patent trolls are part of the show .
Do n't blame them for exploiting a corrupt system .
You do n't get rich without stepping on some peoples ' toes .
It 's the nature of the beast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However this is a really plain-as-day example of how patent trolls are ruining business for everyone.Really, what's your beef?
This is precisely what the system was designed to do.. to keep the small fry independents from muscling in on the big boys' territory.
I must say, it's working marvelously.
Patent trolls are part of the show.
Don't blame them for exploiting a corrupt system.
You don't get rich without stepping on some peoples' toes.
It's the nature of the beast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011706</id>
	<title>Re:documenting H.264 on http://en.swpat.org</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1264961040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, that's why there are no functional video players that support H.264.  Except for Windows Media Player, which comes free with Windows.  And Quicktime/iTunes, which comes free with OS X and are free for Windows.  And VLC, which is free and usually comes free with Linux distributions.  And MPlayer.  And PowerDVD.  And Totem.  In fact there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_video\_player\_software#Video\_format\_capability" title="wikipedia.org">at least 20 such players</a> [wikipedia.org], some free, some proprietary.  Every modern OS comes with a free, functional video player and there are several options if you don't like the one that comes in the box.</p><p>Software patents on video codecs didn't start with H.264.  MPEG-1 was patented, so was MPEG-2.  Royalties were sought in both cases.  That didn't stop free and open source encoders and decoders from being produced, and nobody got sued or shut down.</p><p>The existence of a patent does not mean that the patent will be enforced in all cases.  Patent owners, like other property owners, ignore low-value infringements all the time.  It's generally not economically rational to sue free and open source software projects for patent infringement.  There are several reasons:</p><p>1. Patents are territorial but FOSS development is international.  If you get an injunction in one country, development and hosting will continue in others.  Even if you had a patent in every single country in the world, enforcement would be incredibly expensive and not at all worth it.</p><p>2. You generally can't get money damages and an injunction--assuming you can get one--would be useless.  The baseline for patent damages in the US is a reasonable royalty.  But a FOSS project would never pay a royalty.  So the reasonable royalty is $0.  Lost profits are arguable, but even if you can get a judgment, good luck collecting it from free software developers.  An injunction may be obtainable, but the code is out there; you can't delete something from the internet, and development will be continued by others either in this country or another one.</p><p>3. The cost is prohibitive.  Assuming the defendants put up even the slightest fight it would cost the patentee tens of thousands of dollars to sue.  And if the EFF/SFLC/RedHat/etc get involved it would probably cost the patentee's millions and risk invalidating the patents.  Even if the patentee wins it's doubtful it could collect enough in damages or increased licensing revenue to offset the cost of litigation.</p><p>4. The PR is terrible.  Suing volunteer developers is a great way to get a terrible reputation among the very people who decide what formats to use on websites.  Start suing open source developers and expect to see IT workers all over the world recommend moving to unencumbered or at least litigation-free formats.</p><p>All of these reasons and more are why, despite tens of thousands of software patents having issued over the past couple of decades, the Open Source Software Patent Apocalypse has failed to materialize.  It's just not a significant risk.  The SWPat wiki has only incredibly weak sauce examples, most of which are merely potential dangers, not actual lawsuits or even threats of suits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , that 's why there are no functional video players that support H.264 .
Except for Windows Media Player , which comes free with Windows .
And Quicktime/iTunes , which comes free with OS X and are free for Windows .
And VLC , which is free and usually comes free with Linux distributions .
And MPlayer .
And PowerDVD .
And Totem .
In fact there are at least 20 such players [ wikipedia.org ] , some free , some proprietary .
Every modern OS comes with a free , functional video player and there are several options if you do n't like the one that comes in the box.Software patents on video codecs did n't start with H.264 .
MPEG-1 was patented , so was MPEG-2 .
Royalties were sought in both cases .
That did n't stop free and open source encoders and decoders from being produced , and nobody got sued or shut down.The existence of a patent does not mean that the patent will be enforced in all cases .
Patent owners , like other property owners , ignore low-value infringements all the time .
It 's generally not economically rational to sue free and open source software projects for patent infringement .
There are several reasons : 1 .
Patents are territorial but FOSS development is international .
If you get an injunction in one country , development and hosting will continue in others .
Even if you had a patent in every single country in the world , enforcement would be incredibly expensive and not at all worth it.2 .
You generally ca n't get money damages and an injunction--assuming you can get one--would be useless .
The baseline for patent damages in the US is a reasonable royalty .
But a FOSS project would never pay a royalty .
So the reasonable royalty is $ 0 .
Lost profits are arguable , but even if you can get a judgment , good luck collecting it from free software developers .
An injunction may be obtainable , but the code is out there ; you ca n't delete something from the internet , and development will be continued by others either in this country or another one.3 .
The cost is prohibitive .
Assuming the defendants put up even the slightest fight it would cost the patentee tens of thousands of dollars to sue .
And if the EFF/SFLC/RedHat/etc get involved it would probably cost the patentee 's millions and risk invalidating the patents .
Even if the patentee wins it 's doubtful it could collect enough in damages or increased licensing revenue to offset the cost of litigation.4 .
The PR is terrible .
Suing volunteer developers is a great way to get a terrible reputation among the very people who decide what formats to use on websites .
Start suing open source developers and expect to see IT workers all over the world recommend moving to unencumbered or at least litigation-free formats.All of these reasons and more are why , despite tens of thousands of software patents having issued over the past couple of decades , the Open Source Software Patent Apocalypse has failed to materialize .
It 's just not a significant risk .
The SWPat wiki has only incredibly weak sauce examples , most of which are merely potential dangers , not actual lawsuits or even threats of suits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, that's why there are no functional video players that support H.264.
Except for Windows Media Player, which comes free with Windows.
And Quicktime/iTunes, which comes free with OS X and are free for Windows.
And VLC, which is free and usually comes free with Linux distributions.
And MPlayer.
And PowerDVD.
And Totem.
In fact there are at least 20 such players [wikipedia.org], some free, some proprietary.
Every modern OS comes with a free, functional video player and there are several options if you don't like the one that comes in the box.Software patents on video codecs didn't start with H.264.
MPEG-1 was patented, so was MPEG-2.
Royalties were sought in both cases.
That didn't stop free and open source encoders and decoders from being produced, and nobody got sued or shut down.The existence of a patent does not mean that the patent will be enforced in all cases.
Patent owners, like other property owners, ignore low-value infringements all the time.
It's generally not economically rational to sue free and open source software projects for patent infringement.
There are several reasons:1.
Patents are territorial but FOSS development is international.
If you get an injunction in one country, development and hosting will continue in others.
Even if you had a patent in every single country in the world, enforcement would be incredibly expensive and not at all worth it.2.
You generally can't get money damages and an injunction--assuming you can get one--would be useless.
The baseline for patent damages in the US is a reasonable royalty.
But a FOSS project would never pay a royalty.
So the reasonable royalty is $0.
Lost profits are arguable, but even if you can get a judgment, good luck collecting it from free software developers.
An injunction may be obtainable, but the code is out there; you can't delete something from the internet, and development will be continued by others either in this country or another one.3.
The cost is prohibitive.
Assuming the defendants put up even the slightest fight it would cost the patentee tens of thousands of dollars to sue.
And if the EFF/SFLC/RedHat/etc get involved it would probably cost the patentee's millions and risk invalidating the patents.
Even if the patentee wins it's doubtful it could collect enough in damages or increased licensing revenue to offset the cost of litigation.4.
The PR is terrible.
Suing volunteer developers is a great way to get a terrible reputation among the very people who decide what formats to use on websites.
Start suing open source developers and expect to see IT workers all over the world recommend moving to unencumbered or at least litigation-free formats.All of these reasons and more are why, despite tens of thousands of software patents having issued over the past couple of decades, the Open Source Software Patent Apocalypse has failed to materialize.
It's just not a significant risk.
The SWPat wiki has only incredibly weak sauce examples, most of which are merely potential dangers, not actual lawsuits or even threats of suits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011028</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>glop</author>
	<datestamp>1264958460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are using H.264 to do the encoding. I think they are using the free trial and that might be why they are buying On2. They want so be sure that Youtube can free itself from H.264 some day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are using H.264 to do the encoding .
I think they are using the free trial and that might be why they are buying On2 .
They want so be sure that Youtube can free itself from H.264 some day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are using H.264 to do the encoding.
I think they are using the free trial and that might be why they are buying On2.
They want so be sure that Youtube can free itself from H.264 some day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013412</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of fallout</title>
	<author>raynet</author>
	<datestamp>1264968180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my books anyone having software patents are patent trolls, fortunately software patents aren't valid here, yet..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my books anyone having software patents are patent trolls , fortunately software patents are n't valid here , yet. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my books anyone having software patents are patent trolls, fortunately software patents aren't valid here, yet..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31019404</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that maybe a bigger look at the issue is needed.  We geeks look at the specs and think only of the potential uses.  We don't generally look at how it impacts the tech ecosystem on the whole (legally or financially).  On the other hand, the C Team (CEO, CFO, COO, etc.,...) don't see the tech issues - they only care about cost and productivity.  Is it any coincidence that these days, the marketing teams send stuff directly to the C Team, bypassing the technical vetting process?  (think of it as bypassing the whole meet the parents thing)  The C Team gets a nice powerpoint (misspelled, apparently, I supposed to capitalize the Ps - I refuse) file explaining how such and such will benefit them in the next year or so.  In their wisdom, they make a decision based on how the next quarterly report (will I get laid now or not?) will look without considering what happens 6 years from now after such and such has become so critical (now there are three kids, a dog and a house... because back then, all I wanted was to get laid), it can't be scrapped... because there have been followup marketing initiatives designed to deepen the the dependency (blowjobs when your a good boy).</p><p>I got a word document via email the other day.  The format was Word 97-2003 &amp;6.0/95 -RTF (*.doc) - well over 6 years old.</p><p>Once something sticks, its hard to change because it requires huge amounts of people to make changes to huge amounts of content that are not calculated as profitable on the balance sheet for THIS YEAR so no matter what year it is, it never happens.</p><p>That's format wars in a nutshell - it doesn't matter about cost, it matters about market share.  Once you have the market share, the cost the market will pay (ie, what the vendor can charge) is essentially limitless.</p><p>Its the art of creating an addict.  The same rules apply regardless if it's drugs or software - give it away until dependency is established and then charge one penny below what will kill the customer.</p><p>In my case, I HAVE to have something that will open that document in the same way as the creator of the document - that means I need MS Office (macros, silly extensions, etc.,...).  Sure, I suppose I could use OpenOffice, but then again, I don't know what MS specific crap is in the document when I get it.  Even if OpenOffice might open the document, I still need MS Office because there might be some obsure feature used in it that OpenOffice doesn't support.</p><p>Did the document really need that single feature only MS provides?  No.  Was that single source feature used anyway?  Yes, because MS told the C Team it was the most cost effective in the short term regardless of the pleas from those who know about considering the long term.</p><p>We all know this is why NO vendor likes open formats if they sell a product.  We all know this is why ALL vendors like open formats if they sell services based on that format rather than the software itself.</p><p>Sorry - where I said 'sell', I meant 'license' - another case in point.</p><p>Lets have more "You are not allowed to make a dime unless I make a dollar - after all, your lot in life is to make sure I continue to become exponentially more wealthy than you.  By the way, to even think about being upset violated my patent and with this new legislation, is a felony.  Welcome to jail because you didn't just hand over your lunch money when I asked - how dare you!</p><p>I love computers.  I loath anything related to the software/hardware industry (particularly licensing, related patent/copyright law and current/proposed legislation).  I know I'm not alone in that sentiment.</p><p>The entire industry reminds me of the idea of of a bad marriage.  A phrase I heard sums it up nicely.  "Have you ever heard a lawyer tell you to divorce your wife because your standard of living would go up?"  (please apologize - this is not meant to be sexist, its just a metaphor that is understandable regardless of opinion, thought with the other portions of my comment, it's sure to seem sexist)  Sure, Microsoft is sexy and is al</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that maybe a bigger look at the issue is needed .
We geeks look at the specs and think only of the potential uses .
We do n't generally look at how it impacts the tech ecosystem on the whole ( legally or financially ) .
On the other hand , the C Team ( CEO , CFO , COO , etc.,.. .
) do n't see the tech issues - they only care about cost and productivity .
Is it any coincidence that these days , the marketing teams send stuff directly to the C Team , bypassing the technical vetting process ?
( think of it as bypassing the whole meet the parents thing ) The C Team gets a nice powerpoint ( misspelled , apparently , I supposed to capitalize the Ps - I refuse ) file explaining how such and such will benefit them in the next year or so .
In their wisdom , they make a decision based on how the next quarterly report ( will I get laid now or not ?
) will look without considering what happens 6 years from now after such and such has become so critical ( now there are three kids , a dog and a house... because back then , all I wanted was to get laid ) , it ca n't be scrapped... because there have been followup marketing initiatives designed to deepen the the dependency ( blowjobs when your a good boy ) .I got a word document via email the other day .
The format was Word 97-2003 &amp;6.0/95 -RTF ( * .doc ) - well over 6 years old.Once something sticks , its hard to change because it requires huge amounts of people to make changes to huge amounts of content that are not calculated as profitable on the balance sheet for THIS YEAR so no matter what year it is , it never happens.That 's format wars in a nutshell - it does n't matter about cost , it matters about market share .
Once you have the market share , the cost the market will pay ( ie , what the vendor can charge ) is essentially limitless.Its the art of creating an addict .
The same rules apply regardless if it 's drugs or software - give it away until dependency is established and then charge one penny below what will kill the customer.In my case , I HAVE to have something that will open that document in the same way as the creator of the document - that means I need MS Office ( macros , silly extensions , etc.,... ) .
Sure , I suppose I could use OpenOffice , but then again , I do n't know what MS specific crap is in the document when I get it .
Even if OpenOffice might open the document , I still need MS Office because there might be some obsure feature used in it that OpenOffice does n't support.Did the document really need that single feature only MS provides ?
No. Was that single source feature used anyway ?
Yes , because MS told the C Team it was the most cost effective in the short term regardless of the pleas from those who know about considering the long term.We all know this is why NO vendor likes open formats if they sell a product .
We all know this is why ALL vendors like open formats if they sell services based on that format rather than the software itself.Sorry - where I said 'sell ' , I meant 'license ' - another case in point.Lets have more " You are not allowed to make a dime unless I make a dollar - after all , your lot in life is to make sure I continue to become exponentially more wealthy than you .
By the way , to even think about being upset violated my patent and with this new legislation , is a felony .
Welcome to jail because you did n't just hand over your lunch money when I asked - how dare you ! I love computers .
I loath anything related to the software/hardware industry ( particularly licensing , related patent/copyright law and current/proposed legislation ) .
I know I 'm not alone in that sentiment.The entire industry reminds me of the idea of of a bad marriage .
A phrase I heard sums it up nicely .
" Have you ever heard a lawyer tell you to divorce your wife because your standard of living would go up ?
" ( please apologize - this is not meant to be sexist , its just a metaphor that is understandable regardless of opinion , thought with the other portions of my comment , it 's sure to seem sexist ) Sure , Microsoft is sexy and is al</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that maybe a bigger look at the issue is needed.
We geeks look at the specs and think only of the potential uses.
We don't generally look at how it impacts the tech ecosystem on the whole (legally or financially).
On the other hand, the C Team (CEO, CFO, COO, etc.,...
) don't see the tech issues - they only care about cost and productivity.
Is it any coincidence that these days, the marketing teams send stuff directly to the C Team, bypassing the technical vetting process?
(think of it as bypassing the whole meet the parents thing)  The C Team gets a nice powerpoint (misspelled, apparently, I supposed to capitalize the Ps - I refuse) file explaining how such and such will benefit them in the next year or so.
In their wisdom, they make a decision based on how the next quarterly report (will I get laid now or not?
) will look without considering what happens 6 years from now after such and such has become so critical (now there are three kids, a dog and a house... because back then, all I wanted was to get laid), it can't be scrapped... because there have been followup marketing initiatives designed to deepen the the dependency (blowjobs when your a good boy).I got a word document via email the other day.
The format was Word 97-2003 &amp;6.0/95 -RTF (*.doc) - well over 6 years old.Once something sticks, its hard to change because it requires huge amounts of people to make changes to huge amounts of content that are not calculated as profitable on the balance sheet for THIS YEAR so no matter what year it is, it never happens.That's format wars in a nutshell - it doesn't matter about cost, it matters about market share.
Once you have the market share, the cost the market will pay (ie, what the vendor can charge) is essentially limitless.Its the art of creating an addict.
The same rules apply regardless if it's drugs or software - give it away until dependency is established and then charge one penny below what will kill the customer.In my case, I HAVE to have something that will open that document in the same way as the creator of the document - that means I need MS Office (macros, silly extensions, etc.,...).
Sure, I suppose I could use OpenOffice, but then again, I don't know what MS specific crap is in the document when I get it.
Even if OpenOffice might open the document, I still need MS Office because there might be some obsure feature used in it that OpenOffice doesn't support.Did the document really need that single feature only MS provides?
No.  Was that single source feature used anyway?
Yes, because MS told the C Team it was the most cost effective in the short term regardless of the pleas from those who know about considering the long term.We all know this is why NO vendor likes open formats if they sell a product.
We all know this is why ALL vendors like open formats if they sell services based on that format rather than the software itself.Sorry - where I said 'sell', I meant 'license' - another case in point.Lets have more "You are not allowed to make a dime unless I make a dollar - after all, your lot in life is to make sure I continue to become exponentially more wealthy than you.
By the way, to even think about being upset violated my patent and with this new legislation, is a felony.
Welcome to jail because you didn't just hand over your lunch money when I asked - how dare you!I love computers.
I loath anything related to the software/hardware industry (particularly licensing, related patent/copyright law and current/proposed legislation).
I know I'm not alone in that sentiment.The entire industry reminds me of the idea of of a bad marriage.
A phrase I heard sums it up nicely.
"Have you ever heard a lawyer tell you to divorce your wife because your standard of living would go up?
"  (please apologize - this is not meant to be sexist, its just a metaphor that is understandable regardless of opinion, thought with the other portions of my comment, it's sure to seem sexist)  Sure, Microsoft is sexy and is al</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012190</id>
	<title>No, you can&rsquo;t do that with H.264</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1264962780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This should probably be its own story so more people get to see it, particularly those who are defending H.264 or are not aware of all the implications of standardizing on it.
<p>
<a href="http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/" title="bemasc.net">http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/</a> [bemasc.net]
</p><p>
Here is the lead paragraph:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A lot of commercial software comes with H.264 encoders and decoders, and some computers arrive with this software preinstalled. This leads a lot of people to believe that they can legally view and create H.264 videos for whatever purpose they like. Unfortunately for them, it ain&rsquo;t so.</p></div><p>
The article goes on to discuss the limitations on H.264 use in actual practice using examples of actual licenses.  As I read it, the authorized software used to encode H.264 videos places strict limits on the use of the resulting video.  This seems to be a problem not mentioned much in the context of royalty-free streaming of H.264 over the web, and infringement may actually be facilitated by the latter (by making these videos more ubiquitous).
</p><p>
This is in contrast to Theora, whose license has none of the same restrictions, whether or not the video is streamed over the internet.
</p><p>
Note: As I read this, it has nothing to do with the question of royalties themselves, but rather with the terms of use dictated by the actual license, royalty free or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This should probably be its own story so more people get to see it , particularly those who are defending H.264 or are not aware of all the implications of standardizing on it .
http : //bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/ [ bemasc.net ] Here is the lead paragraph : A lot of commercial software comes with H.264 encoders and decoders , and some computers arrive with this software preinstalled .
This leads a lot of people to believe that they can legally view and create H.264 videos for whatever purpose they like .
Unfortunately for them , it ain    t so .
The article goes on to discuss the limitations on H.264 use in actual practice using examples of actual licenses .
As I read it , the authorized software used to encode H.264 videos places strict limits on the use of the resulting video .
This seems to be a problem not mentioned much in the context of royalty-free streaming of H.264 over the web , and infringement may actually be facilitated by the latter ( by making these videos more ubiquitous ) .
This is in contrast to Theora , whose license has none of the same restrictions , whether or not the video is streamed over the internet .
Note : As I read this , it has nothing to do with the question of royalties themselves , but rather with the terms of use dictated by the actual license , royalty free or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should probably be its own story so more people get to see it, particularly those who are defending H.264 or are not aware of all the implications of standardizing on it.
http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/ [bemasc.net]

Here is the lead paragraph:A lot of commercial software comes with H.264 encoders and decoders, and some computers arrive with this software preinstalled.
This leads a lot of people to believe that they can legally view and create H.264 videos for whatever purpose they like.
Unfortunately for them, it ain’t so.
The article goes on to discuss the limitations on H.264 use in actual practice using examples of actual licenses.
As I read it, the authorized software used to encode H.264 videos places strict limits on the use of the resulting video.
This seems to be a problem not mentioned much in the context of royalty-free streaming of H.264 over the web, and infringement may actually be facilitated by the latter (by making these videos more ubiquitous).
This is in contrast to Theora, whose license has none of the same restrictions, whether or not the video is streamed over the internet.
Note: As I read this, it has nothing to do with the question of royalties themselves, but rather with the terms of use dictated by the actual license, royalty free or not.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012534</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1264964160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML4 has been with us since 1997. There's not much reason to think that HTML5 will be around for less than 6 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML4 has been with us since 1997 .
There 's not much reason to think that HTML5 will be around for less than 6 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML4 has been with us since 1997.
There's not much reason to think that HTML5 will be around for less than 6 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012134</id>
	<title>Re:documenting H.264 on http://en.swpat.org</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1264962540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>   The MPEG patent thicket is a prime example of the real problem of software patents. If I want to write a video player, it has to play the formats that people encode videos in. The veto power of patents equates to the right to prohibit me, and everyone, from writing a functional video player. I think I already have pretty good info, but there's loads more of this story to tell. Help really appreciated in documenting this:</p></div></blockquote><p>That's why there are patent consortiums. MPEG-LA is one, 3C Entity (and 5C Entity) are another, etc. If you want to write a h.264 decoder, you license the h.264 patents, and you're free and clear because your royalty payment pays for ALL the patents in h.264 - it's all RAND licensing. Most working groups for various technologies form consortiums because navigating the patent minefield is such a pain. Instead, you get to license all the patents you need for one small fee. Need to do a Blu-Ray player? Blu-Ray Association will point you to the consortium that licenses (and sub-licenses - stuff like h.264) all the patents needed.</p><p>Ditto stuff like RAM, media (DVD/Blu-Ray/etc), communications technologies (WiFi/802.11 is covered by tons of patents), etc. Many consortiums license to other consortiums so you can do a one-stop shop for licensing (otherwise instead of dealing with 1,000,000 ocmpanies and patents, you deal with 1,000 consortiums, which isn't much better, so a one-stop shop means you deal with a 1 or 2).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPEG patent thicket is a prime example of the real problem of software patents .
If I want to write a video player , it has to play the formats that people encode videos in .
The veto power of patents equates to the right to prohibit me , and everyone , from writing a functional video player .
I think I already have pretty good info , but there 's loads more of this story to tell .
Help really appreciated in documenting this : That 's why there are patent consortiums .
MPEG-LA is one , 3C Entity ( and 5C Entity ) are another , etc .
If you want to write a h.264 decoder , you license the h.264 patents , and you 're free and clear because your royalty payment pays for ALL the patents in h.264 - it 's all RAND licensing .
Most working groups for various technologies form consortiums because navigating the patent minefield is such a pain .
Instead , you get to license all the patents you need for one small fee .
Need to do a Blu-Ray player ?
Blu-Ray Association will point you to the consortium that licenses ( and sub-licenses - stuff like h.264 ) all the patents needed.Ditto stuff like RAM , media ( DVD/Blu-Ray/etc ) , communications technologies ( WiFi/802.11 is covered by tons of patents ) , etc .
Many consortiums license to other consortiums so you can do a one-stop shop for licensing ( otherwise instead of dealing with 1,000,000 ocmpanies and patents , you deal with 1,000 consortiums , which is n't much better , so a one-stop shop means you deal with a 1 or 2 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   The MPEG patent thicket is a prime example of the real problem of software patents.
If I want to write a video player, it has to play the formats that people encode videos in.
The veto power of patents equates to the right to prohibit me, and everyone, from writing a functional video player.
I think I already have pretty good info, but there's loads more of this story to tell.
Help really appreciated in documenting this:That's why there are patent consortiums.
MPEG-LA is one, 3C Entity (and 5C Entity) are another, etc.
If you want to write a h.264 decoder, you license the h.264 patents, and you're free and clear because your royalty payment pays for ALL the patents in h.264 - it's all RAND licensing.
Most working groups for various technologies form consortiums because navigating the patent minefield is such a pain.
Instead, you get to license all the patents you need for one small fee.
Need to do a Blu-Ray player?
Blu-Ray Association will point you to the consortium that licenses (and sub-licenses - stuff like h.264) all the patents needed.Ditto stuff like RAM, media (DVD/Blu-Ray/etc), communications technologies (WiFi/802.11 is covered by tons of patents), etc.
Many consortiums license to other consortiums so you can do a one-stop shop for licensing (otherwise instead of dealing with 1,000,000 ocmpanies and patents, you deal with 1,000 consortiums, which isn't much better, so a one-stop shop means you deal with a 1 or 2).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31018406</id>
	<title>Seems like a good investment.</title>
	<author>Merakis</author>
	<datestamp>1264953660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Admiral Ackbar might <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dddAi8FF3F4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">disagree</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Admiral Ackbar might disagree [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Admiral Ackbar might disagree [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010884</id>
	<title>Re:Data transfer?</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1264957980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Decoding per byte. It's a simple rental model, like the old processor charges in the 60s &amp; 70s on mainframes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Decoding per byte .
It 's a simple rental model , like the old processor charges in the 60s &amp; 70s on mainframes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decoding per byte.
It's a simple rental model, like the old processor charges in the 60s &amp; 70s on mainframes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011056</id>
	<title>Re:SS H.264 submarine patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was common knowledge among implementers that h.264 was free[*] for some time.<br>Wiki first mentioned licensing restrictions around <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H.264/MPEG-4\_AVC&amp;oldid=5702479" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">2004</a> [wikipedia.org]:<br><i>Like many other versions of MPEG, H.264/AVC implementors and users have to pay royalties for the use of it.</i></p><p>And anyone not expecting the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) to cash in somehow is just fooling themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was common knowledge among implementers that h.264 was free [ * ] for some time.Wiki first mentioned licensing restrictions around 2004 [ wikipedia.org ] : Like many other versions of MPEG , H.264/AVC implementors and users have to pay royalties for the use of it.And anyone not expecting the Moving Picture Experts Group ( MPEG ) to cash in somehow is just fooling themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was common knowledge among implementers that h.264 was free[*] for some time.Wiki first mentioned licensing restrictions around 2004 [wikipedia.org]:Like many other versions of MPEG, H.264/AVC implementors and users have to pay royalties for the use of it.And anyone not expecting the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) to cash in somehow is just fooling themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011410</id>
	<title>Re:SS H.264 submarine patent</title>
	<author>organgtool</author>
	<datestamp>1264959960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You hit the nail on the head.  MPEG-LA is simply trying to fatten the cow of H264 marketshare so that they can slaughter it with charges in 2016.
<br> <br>
And for those claiming that another codec will be dominant in six years, while that may be possible, MPEG-2 has been around since 1996 and is still one of the most popular video formats 14 years later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You hit the nail on the head .
MPEG-LA is simply trying to fatten the cow of H264 marketshare so that they can slaughter it with charges in 2016 .
And for those claiming that another codec will be dominant in six years , while that may be possible , MPEG-2 has been around since 1996 and is still one of the most popular video formats 14 years later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You hit the nail on the head.
MPEG-LA is simply trying to fatten the cow of H264 marketshare so that they can slaughter it with charges in 2016.
And for those claiming that another codec will be dominant in six years, while that may be possible, MPEG-2 has been around since 1996 and is still one of the most popular video formats 14 years later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013878</id>
	<title>Bait &amp; Switch</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1264970580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that people are starting to wake up to how encumbered h.264 is and demanding theora for html5 video, they are just delaying the royalty payments to try and lessen the criticism and discourage people from moving to an open format...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that people are starting to wake up to how encumbered h.264 is and demanding theora for html5 video , they are just delaying the royalty payments to try and lessen the criticism and discourage people from moving to an open format.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that people are starting to wake up to how encumbered h.264 is and demanding theora for html5 video, they are just delaying the royalty payments to try and lessen the criticism and discourage people from moving to an open format...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010860</id>
	<title>A lot of fallout</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1264957920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been personally touched by MPEG LA's patent witch hunt. And not in the good way like Kathleen Fent does.</p><p>My brother in law is the CEO of a small LCD monitor company that uses H.264 decoder chips. He buys these chips from a Taiwanese maker who in turn licenses the patent for H.264 decoding from MPEG LA.</p><p>But MPEG LA has been spamming everyone and anyone vaguely connected to H.264 encoding or playback or even (in this case) sending files across the intarweb. He is expected to succeed if MPEG LA ever takes this to court since the patent is already licensed by the chip vendor and his agreement with them covers him under its indemnity clause.</p><p>However this is a really plain-as-day example of how patent trolls are ruining business for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been personally touched by MPEG LA 's patent witch hunt .
And not in the good way like Kathleen Fent does.My brother in law is the CEO of a small LCD monitor company that uses H.264 decoder chips .
He buys these chips from a Taiwanese maker who in turn licenses the patent for H.264 decoding from MPEG LA.But MPEG LA has been spamming everyone and anyone vaguely connected to H.264 encoding or playback or even ( in this case ) sending files across the intarweb .
He is expected to succeed if MPEG LA ever takes this to court since the patent is already licensed by the chip vendor and his agreement with them covers him under its indemnity clause.However this is a really plain-as-day example of how patent trolls are ruining business for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been personally touched by MPEG LA's patent witch hunt.
And not in the good way like Kathleen Fent does.My brother in law is the CEO of a small LCD monitor company that uses H.264 decoder chips.
He buys these chips from a Taiwanese maker who in turn licenses the patent for H.264 decoding from MPEG LA.But MPEG LA has been spamming everyone and anyone vaguely connected to H.264 encoding or playback or even (in this case) sending files across the intarweb.
He is expected to succeed if MPEG LA ever takes this to court since the patent is already licensed by the chip vendor and his agreement with them covers him under its indemnity clause.However this is a really plain-as-day example of how patent trolls are ruining business for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011032</id>
	<title>Re:SS H.264 submarine patent</title>
	<author>Logibeara</author>
	<datestamp>1264958460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2016: Quick drop the FOSS depth charges</p><p>2018: The movie MPEG-571 is released</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2016 : Quick drop the FOSS depth charges2018 : The movie MPEG-571 is released</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2016: Quick drop the FOSS depth charges2018: The movie MPEG-571 is released</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011236</id>
	<title>You F4il It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Users With Large Th3ms3lves to be a</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Users With Large Th3ms3lves to be a [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Users With Large Th3ms3lves to be a [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010790</id>
	<title>SS H.264 submarine patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2010: DIVE! DIVE!<br>It's free, come and get it</p><p>2016: Up periscope. Look there's someone using it without paying the $799/Stream licensing fee.<br>-Arm MPEG LAwyer Torpedoes, FIRE!</p><p>looks like a ambush in slow-motion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2010 : DIVE !
DIVE ! It 's free , come and get it2016 : Up periscope .
Look there 's someone using it without paying the $ 799/Stream licensing fee.-Arm MPEG LAwyer Torpedoes , FIRE ! looks like a ambush in slow-motion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2010: DIVE!
DIVE!It's free, come and get it2016: Up periscope.
Look there's someone using it without paying the $799/Stream licensing fee.-Arm MPEG LAwyer Torpedoes, FIRE!looks like a ambush in slow-motion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776</id>
	<title>Nice</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1264957620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a charming business model.</p><p>Oh well, I guess webmasters could have always used something else, right?</p><p>It's particularly nice that web masters are giving billing information 6 years early, so the company doesn't have to do much to track down the first round of suck^H^H^H^H <i>customers</i> to bill them for use.</p><p>There's nothing like getting your IP embedded deeply into everyones processes (with their complete acknowledgement of that fact) and then seeking rent against the cost of changing it.</p><p>I would expect that many companies don't have migration plans in place, I don't know, not my business.</p><p>Regards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a charming business model.Oh well , I guess webmasters could have always used something else , right ? It 's particularly nice that web masters are giving billing information 6 years early , so the company does n't have to do much to track down the first round of suck ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H customers to bill them for use.There 's nothing like getting your IP embedded deeply into everyones processes ( with their complete acknowledgement of that fact ) and then seeking rent against the cost of changing it.I would expect that many companies do n't have migration plans in place , I do n't know , not my business.Regards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a charming business model.Oh well, I guess webmasters could have always used something else, right?It's particularly nice that web masters are giving billing information 6 years early, so the company doesn't have to do much to track down the first round of suck^H^H^H^H customers to bill them for use.There's nothing like getting your IP embedded deeply into everyones processes (with their complete acknowledgement of that fact) and then seeking rent against the cost of changing it.I would expect that many companies don't have migration plans in place, I don't know, not my business.Regards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013232</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1264967520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Six years makes computers sixteen times faster</p></div><p>No, it makes computers sixteen times <em>denser</em>. Denser was correlated with faster until CPU speeds hit 3 GHz, after which density just meant more cores. Future codecs will need to be more parallel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Six years makes computers sixteen times fasterNo , it makes computers sixteen times denser .
Denser was correlated with faster until CPU speeds hit 3 GHz , after which density just meant more cores .
Future codecs will need to be more parallel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Six years makes computers sixteen times fasterNo, it makes computers sixteen times denser.
Denser was correlated with faster until CPU speeds hit 3 GHz, after which density just meant more cores.
Future codecs will need to be more parallel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011536</id>
	<title>Re:documenting H.264 on http://en.swpat.org</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264960320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thing is... the H.264 patents are method patents, not software patents.</p><p>And the methods used seem eminently patentable to me: novel, non-obvious, etc, etc.</p><p>The only issue is that the setup doesn't play well with cases where the marginal unit cost of an encoder or decoder is very close to 0.  This is not a software-specific problem, per se; if we had star-trek-like synthesizers available for physical items it would be a problem there too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is... the H.264 patents are method patents , not software patents.And the methods used seem eminently patentable to me : novel , non-obvious , etc , etc.The only issue is that the setup does n't play well with cases where the marginal unit cost of an encoder or decoder is very close to 0 .
This is not a software-specific problem , per se ; if we had star-trek-like synthesizers available for physical items it would be a problem there too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is... the H.264 patents are method patents, not software patents.And the methods used seem eminently patentable to me: novel, non-obvious, etc, etc.The only issue is that the setup doesn't play well with cases where the marginal unit cost of an encoder or decoder is very close to 0.
This is not a software-specific problem, per se; if we had star-trek-like synthesizers available for physical items it would be a problem there too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010716</id>
	<title>Data transfer?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1264957380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does a patent license allow you to charge for transmitting data over the Internet? I get that the encoder requires a patent license, and the decoder requires a patent license, but sending an encoded file over the Internet? That's just absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does a patent license allow you to charge for transmitting data over the Internet ?
I get that the encoder requires a patent license , and the decoder requires a patent license , but sending an encoded file over the Internet ?
That 's just absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does a patent license allow you to charge for transmitting data over the Internet?
I get that the encoder requires a patent license, and the decoder requires a patent license, but sending an encoded file over the Internet?
That's just absurd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011274</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be willing to bet that in six years time, computers will be only twice as fast (per dollar).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be willing to bet that in six years time , computers will be only twice as fast ( per dollar ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be willing to bet that in six years time, computers will be only twice as fast (per dollar).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31016466</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>elmartinos</author>
	<datestamp>1264939800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might be that H.264 is good enough. Look at JPEG, this standard was issued 1992, and it is still extremely popular, with no good successor available. The same thing might happen to H.264.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might be that H.264 is good enough .
Look at JPEG , this standard was issued 1992 , and it is still extremely popular , with no good successor available .
The same thing might happen to H.264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might be that H.264 is good enough.
Look at JPEG, this standard was issued 1992, and it is still extremely popular, with no good successor available.
The same thing might happen to H.264.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011300</id>
	<title>By 2016</title>
	<author>calibre-not-output</author>
	<datestamp>1264959540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>we'll be using a different format. Yes, it will be encumbered by patents, DRM and a bunch of other shit we don't even know yet - but it will not be H.264. I don't really see how this extension of free licensing could be profitable to them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>we 'll be using a different format .
Yes , it will be encumbered by patents , DRM and a bunch of other shit we do n't even know yet - but it will not be H.264 .
I do n't really see how this extension of free licensing could be profitable to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we'll be using a different format.
Yes, it will be encumbered by patents, DRM and a bunch of other shit we don't even know yet - but it will not be H.264.
I don't really see how this extension of free licensing could be profitable to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011104</id>
	<title>New protocols for 2028?</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1264958760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is, do you think that protocols using only ideas from before 2008 will be optimal for whatever hardware and software systems we'll be using in 2028?</p><p>While you're thinking about that, please support campaigns to <a href="http://endsoftwarepatents.org/" title="endsoftwarepatents.org">abolish software patents</a> [endsoftwarepatents.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is , do you think that protocols using only ideas from before 2008 will be optimal for whatever hardware and software systems we 'll be using in 2028 ? While you 're thinking about that , please support campaigns to abolish software patents [ endsoftwarepatents.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is, do you think that protocols using only ideas from before 2008 will be optimal for whatever hardware and software systems we'll be using in 2028?While you're thinking about that, please support campaigns to abolish software patents [endsoftwarepatents.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011076</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>NNKK</author>
	<datestamp>1264958640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a bit confused. HTML 5 is a markup language, not a codec. YouTube's HTML 5 site is still in H.264, it's just not using Flash to play it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a bit confused .
HTML 5 is a markup language , not a codec .
YouTube 's HTML 5 site is still in H.264 , it 's just not using Flash to play it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a bit confused.
HTML 5 is a markup language, not a codec.
YouTube's HTML 5 site is still in H.264, it's just not using Flash to play it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013498</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264968600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If H.264 becomes the standard, or defacto standard, for HTML5, we're going to be *lucky* to extricate it and its licensing costs from our browsers within 15 years. Standards evolve very slowly. HTML5 still isn't finalised. When it is finalised, it'll still be a year or so before all browsers more-or-less support it completely.</p><p>By the time the free trial expires, there'll be no easy way to remove H.264. That's the danger of willing admitting a patented codec into a standard which will should last decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If H.264 becomes the standard , or defacto standard , for HTML5 , we 're going to be * lucky * to extricate it and its licensing costs from our browsers within 15 years .
Standards evolve very slowly .
HTML5 still is n't finalised .
When it is finalised , it 'll still be a year or so before all browsers more-or-less support it completely.By the time the free trial expires , there 'll be no easy way to remove H.264 .
That 's the danger of willing admitting a patented codec into a standard which will should last decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If H.264 becomes the standard, or defacto standard, for HTML5, we're going to be *lucky* to extricate it and its licensing costs from our browsers within 15 years.
Standards evolve very slowly.
HTML5 still isn't finalised.
When it is finalised, it'll still be a year or so before all browsers more-or-less support it completely.By the time the free trial expires, there'll be no easy way to remove H.264.
That's the danger of willing admitting a patented codec into a standard which will should last decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31017636</id>
	<title>Re:Data transfer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264947120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>damn you're a dumb shit. i bet you use linux too huh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>damn you 're a dumb shit .
i bet you use linux too huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>damn you're a dumb shit.
i bet you use linux too huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011790</id>
	<title>Re:A lot of fallout</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1264961400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The MPEG LA are hardly patent trolls. The term is so often applied to "anyone who has a patent and dares to enforce it" when it really doesn't mean that at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MPEG LA are hardly patent trolls .
The term is so often applied to " anyone who has a patent and dares to enforce it " when it really does n't mean that at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MPEG LA are hardly patent trolls.
The term is so often applied to "anyone who has a patent and dares to enforce it" when it really doesn't mean that at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011566</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264960440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Remember the CODECs we were using six years ago?</p><p>You mean H.264 (standardized in 2003)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Remember the CODECs we were using six years ago ? You mean H.264 ( standardized in 2003 ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Remember the CODECs we were using six years ago?You mean H.264 (standardized in 2003)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012070</id>
	<title>Just say no!</title>
	<author>woboyle</author>
	<datestamp>1264962360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just say NO! to H264.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just say NO !
to H264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just say NO!
to H264.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31018780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31037636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31016192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31019404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31033996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31017636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31016466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31014644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_1528242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31014644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31033996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31016192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31037636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31019404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31016466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31017636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31013034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31018780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_1528242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31010790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31012726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_1528242.31011032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
