<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_04_1728214</id>
	<title>IO Data Licenses Microsoft's "Linux Patents"</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267727340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"The Japanese computer manuracturer <a href="http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/03/microsoft\_i-o\_data\_in\_patent\_deal.html">IO Data is the latest in line</a> to license Microsoft's so-called 'Linux patents,' following the likes of <a href="//linux.slashdot.org/story/06/11/08/0244242/Novell-Gets-348-Million-From-Microsoft&amp;tid=305">Novell</a>, <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/07/04/20/1440218/MicrosoftSamsung-Ink-Patent-Deal">Samsung</a>, and <a href="//news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/23/1231255">Amazon</a>. Yes, even the <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/i-o-data-signs-linux-software-patent-agreement-with-microsoft-86281687.html">press releases use the word 'Linux' to describe these patents</a>. From the press release: 'Specifically, the patent covenants apply to I-O Data's network-attached storage devices and its routers, which run Linux. Although the details of the agreement have not been disclosed, the parties indicated that Microsoft is being compensated by I-O Data.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " The Japanese computer manuracturer IO Data is the latest in line to license Microsoft 's so-called 'Linux patents, ' following the likes of Novell , Samsung , and Amazon .
Yes , even the press releases use the word 'Linux ' to describe these patents .
From the press release : 'Specifically , the patent covenants apply to I-O Data 's network-attached storage devices and its routers , which run Linux .
Although the details of the agreement have not been disclosed , the parties indicated that Microsoft is being compensated by I-O Data .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "The Japanese computer manuracturer IO Data is the latest in line to license Microsoft's so-called 'Linux patents,' following the likes of Novell, Samsung, and Amazon.
Yes, even the press releases use the word 'Linux' to describe these patents.
From the press release: 'Specifically, the patent covenants apply to I-O Data's network-attached storage devices and its routers, which run Linux.
Although the details of the agreement have not been disclosed, the parties indicated that Microsoft is being compensated by I-O Data.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361996</id>
	<title>Cross-licensing</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1267694100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup.  And with all the cross-licensing deals companies end up entering into with MS, who ends up holding all the cards?  MS cross-licenses with everyone else, who don't end up cross-licensing with each other.  There's an imbalance in the force...  Yet another barrier of entry for companies to have to surpass to compete with the gorillas...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
And with all the cross-licensing deals companies end up entering into with MS , who ends up holding all the cards ?
MS cross-licenses with everyone else , who do n't end up cross-licensing with each other .
There 's an imbalance in the force... Yet another barrier of entry for companies to have to surpass to compete with the gorillas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
And with all the cross-licensing deals companies end up entering into with MS, who ends up holding all the cards?
MS cross-licenses with everyone else, who don't end up cross-licensing with each other.
There's an imbalance in the force...  Yet another barrier of entry for companies to have to surpass to compete with the gorillas...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360712</id>
	<title>North Korea</title>
	<author>MrEricSir</author>
	<datestamp>1267731180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet Kim Jung Il didn't license those "Linux patents" from Microsoft when he rolled out Red Star.  Is that grounds for attacking North Korea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet Kim Jung Il did n't license those " Linux patents " from Microsoft when he rolled out Red Star .
Is that grounds for attacking North Korea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet Kim Jung Il didn't license those "Linux patents" from Microsoft when he rolled out Red Star.
Is that grounds for attacking North Korea?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360734</id>
	<title>Free money.</title>
	<author>Spewns</author>
	<datestamp>1267731300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish I could run a scam as good as Microsoft's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I could run a scam as good as Microsoft 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I could run a scam as good as Microsoft's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361028</id>
	<title>Re:Soprano style</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267732680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds cute, but straight to jail for extortion. The threat with a weapon, that you may or may not have wouldn't change that it is still a physical threat, not legal in Canada at least. However, we are just people, not super entities like corporations that now even get their own say legally in the US. It seems they can do the above with no issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds cute , but straight to jail for extortion .
The threat with a weapon , that you may or may not have would n't change that it is still a physical threat , not legal in Canada at least .
However , we are just people , not super entities like corporations that now even get their own say legally in the US .
It seems they can do the above with no issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds cute, but straight to jail for extortion.
The threat with a weapon, that you may or may not have wouldn't change that it is still a physical threat, not legal in Canada at least.
However, we are just people, not super entities like corporations that now even get their own say legally in the US.
It seems they can do the above with no issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360800</id>
	<title>All Together Now  !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267731660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Eeeee-Eye-Eeeeee-I-O</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>Yours In Reykjavik,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eeeee-Eye-Eeeeee-I-O [ microsoft.com ] Yours In Reykjavik,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eeeee-Eye-Eeeeee-I-O [microsoft.com]Yours In Reykjavik,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361124</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267733160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bastards who do exactly what the business of government wants. The reason why IP law (and the law in general) is absurdly complex, ambiguous, and overblown is because it drives up the cost of government, in terms of both power and revenue. The legal system itself is a multi billion-dollar business created out of thin air, precisely for the benefit of the legal elite.</p><p>Imagine if the law was based on common sense and simplicity, understandable by the common man, exploitable by nobody -- what's in that for government? What's in that for the corporation, or any other creation of government? Nothing -- the only people who would benefit from that are those who want to compete on fair grounds.</p><p>The bottom line is that government benefits more, in terms of both revenue and power over the people, by implementing these backwards laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bastards who do exactly what the business of government wants .
The reason why IP law ( and the law in general ) is absurdly complex , ambiguous , and overblown is because it drives up the cost of government , in terms of both power and revenue .
The legal system itself is a multi billion-dollar business created out of thin air , precisely for the benefit of the legal elite.Imagine if the law was based on common sense and simplicity , understandable by the common man , exploitable by nobody -- what 's in that for government ?
What 's in that for the corporation , or any other creation of government ?
Nothing -- the only people who would benefit from that are those who want to compete on fair grounds.The bottom line is that government benefits more , in terms of both revenue and power over the people , by implementing these backwards laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bastards who do exactly what the business of government wants.
The reason why IP law (and the law in general) is absurdly complex, ambiguous, and overblown is because it drives up the cost of government, in terms of both power and revenue.
The legal system itself is a multi billion-dollar business created out of thin air, precisely for the benefit of the legal elite.Imagine if the law was based on common sense and simplicity, understandable by the common man, exploitable by nobody -- what's in that for government?
What's in that for the corporation, or any other creation of government?
Nothing -- the only people who would benefit from that are those who want to compete on fair grounds.The bottom line is that government benefits more, in terms of both revenue and power over the people, by implementing these backwards laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361086</id>
	<title>Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet?</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1267732980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't understand why the Linux developers are so quiet about this. Microsoft is building up a huge amount of momentum around the idea that Linux violates some arbitrary patents, and not a single Linux developer or company appears willing to call them out on it. Bizarre.</p></div></blockquote><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Bizarre?  How so?  It's [joe blow Linux developer] VS. Richest company in the World's Law Team (that successfully managed to blunt a clear antitrust case by the US DOJ). You go the wherewithall to go up against them?  I sure don't, and certainly not just to defend a principle.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why the Linux developers are so quiet about this .
Microsoft is building up a huge amount of momentum around the idea that Linux violates some arbitrary patents , and not a single Linux developer or company appears willing to call them out on it .
Bizarre .       Bizarre ?
How so ?
It 's [ joe blow Linux developer ] VS. Richest company in the World 's Law Team ( that successfully managed to blunt a clear antitrust case by the US DOJ ) .
You go the wherewithall to go up against them ?
I sure do n't , and certainly not just to defend a principle .
          Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why the Linux developers are so quiet about this.
Microsoft is building up a huge amount of momentum around the idea that Linux violates some arbitrary patents, and not a single Linux developer or company appears willing to call them out on it.
Bizarre.
      Bizarre?
How so?
It's [joe blow Linux developer] VS. Richest company in the World's Law Team (that successfully managed to blunt a clear antitrust case by the US DOJ).
You go the wherewithall to go up against them?
I sure don't, and certainly not just to defend a principle.
          Brett
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31368172</id>
	<title>Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet?</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1267819800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call them out how? They refuse to specify what patents are violated. If you look at the details of the licensing deals MS appears to have paid more than they have been  paid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call them out how ?
They refuse to specify what patents are violated .
If you look at the details of the licensing deals MS appears to have paid more than they have been paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call them out how?
They refuse to specify what patents are violated.
If you look at the details of the licensing deals MS appears to have paid more than they have been  paid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361054</id>
	<title>Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet?</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1267732800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back when Microsoft first claimed that <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/05/14/0018242.shtml" title="slashdot.org">FOSS violates 235 patents</a> [slashdot.org], <a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/21/229219" title="slashdot.org">they did</a> [slashdot.org], and near as I can tell, nothing ever came of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when Microsoft first claimed that FOSS violates 235 patents [ slashdot.org ] , they did [ slashdot.org ] , and near as I can tell , nothing ever came of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when Microsoft first claimed that FOSS violates 235 patents [slashdot.org], they did [slashdot.org], and near as I can tell, nothing ever came of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361030</id>
	<title>Distributions?</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1267732680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long before they start hitting up specific distributions with their claims?  Does any of this "established precendent" matter?  Will it just be enough to scare off PHB's who don't know any better from Linux?  Can they be sued or otherwise complelled to provide the exact patents in their claims?  If any of those patents are found to be valid and distributions write them out of their repositories how liable are they for the past infringment?  Software patents hurt innovation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before they start hitting up specific distributions with their claims ?
Does any of this " established precendent " matter ?
Will it just be enough to scare off PHB 's who do n't know any better from Linux ?
Can they be sued or otherwise complelled to provide the exact patents in their claims ?
If any of those patents are found to be valid and distributions write them out of their repositories how liable are they for the past infringment ?
Software patents hurt innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before they start hitting up specific distributions with their claims?
Does any of this "established precendent" matter?
Will it just be enough to scare off PHB's who don't know any better from Linux?
Can they be sued or otherwise complelled to provide the exact patents in their claims?
If any of those patents are found to be valid and distributions write them out of their repositories how liable are they for the past infringment?
Software patents hurt innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361834</id>
	<title>Re:FFS! What patents !!!!</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1267693380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Thank god for the EU (I never thought i'd say those words)"</p><p>Why not? They invented freedom fries and all!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thank god for the EU ( I never thought i 'd say those words ) " Why not ?
They invented freedom fries and all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thank god for the EU (I never thought i'd say those words)"Why not?
They invented freedom fries and all!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361148</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>ldconfig</author>
	<datestamp>1267733280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't really blame mickeymousesoft for doing what our overlords the content cartels them. Seeing all those RIAA lawyers in the 'just-us' dept and the VP telling the MPAA "we are your best friends" ALL of us should see whats coming. Very soon you will see the elected wind up drones start saying 'Linux = stealing'. And with the courts stacked with pro rich people right wing activist judges. Banks and insurance co's are small change the real power is the content cartels. When you control everything the people see and hear you rule. Name one other business that can sell the same thing twice without going to jail?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the answer is none. Yet we are charged for TV thats already PAID for with commercials. They keep us divided with left/right el toro poo poo and FORCE us to pay for it with The Hippy News Network (MSNBC) The Clinton News Network (CNN) and White Trash News (Fox). To watch one you gotta pay for all 3. This dog and pony show is designed to keep the public distracted from how bad we are getting screwed by rich people. If the media took 10 min's to teach everyone the history of bucket shops in 1907 and apply that to wall street today (credit default swap) things would change in a hurry and it wouldn't be pretty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't really blame mickeymousesoft for doing what our overlords the content cartels them .
Seeing all those RIAA lawyers in the 'just-us ' dept and the VP telling the MPAA " we are your best friends " ALL of us should see whats coming .
Very soon you will see the elected wind up drones start saying 'Linux = stealing' .
And with the courts stacked with pro rich people right wing activist judges .
Banks and insurance co 's are small change the real power is the content cartels .
When you control everything the people see and hear you rule .
Name one other business that can sell the same thing twice without going to jail ?
... the answer is none .
Yet we are charged for TV thats already PAID for with commercials .
They keep us divided with left/right el toro poo poo and FORCE us to pay for it with The Hippy News Network ( MSNBC ) The Clinton News Network ( CNN ) and White Trash News ( Fox ) .
To watch one you got ta pay for all 3 .
This dog and pony show is designed to keep the public distracted from how bad we are getting screwed by rich people .
If the media took 10 min 's to teach everyone the history of bucket shops in 1907 and apply that to wall street today ( credit default swap ) things would change in a hurry and it would n't be pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't really blame mickeymousesoft for doing what our overlords the content cartels them.
Seeing all those RIAA lawyers in the 'just-us' dept and the VP telling the MPAA "we are your best friends" ALL of us should see whats coming.
Very soon you will see the elected wind up drones start saying 'Linux = stealing'.
And with the courts stacked with pro rich people right wing activist judges.
Banks and insurance co's are small change the real power is the content cartels.
When you control everything the people see and hear you rule.
Name one other business that can sell the same thing twice without going to jail?
... the answer is none.
Yet we are charged for TV thats already PAID for with commercials.
They keep us divided with left/right el toro poo poo and FORCE us to pay for it with The Hippy News Network (MSNBC) The Clinton News Network (CNN) and White Trash News (Fox).
To watch one you gotta pay for all 3.
This dog and pony show is designed to keep the public distracted from how bad we are getting screwed by rich people.
If the media took 10 min's to teach everyone the history of bucket shops in 1907 and apply that to wall street today (credit default swap) things would change in a hurry and it wouldn't be pretty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361938</id>
	<title>MS's plans to overtake Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267693800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, MS doesn't actually plan to overtake Linux, it just plans to make money off of other peoples' work.  How long before they turn around and sue the developers of Linux?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , MS does n't actually plan to overtake Linux , it just plans to make money off of other peoples ' work .
How long before they turn around and sue the developers of Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, MS doesn't actually plan to overtake Linux, it just plans to make money off of other peoples' work.
How long before they turn around and sue the developers of Linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360832</id>
	<title>Better than what Apple would do with them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267731840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple would claim they invented computers and patent "using a mouse".</p><p>Then, they would sue companies like HTC that only seek to innovate and market their creations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple would claim they invented computers and patent " using a mouse " .Then , they would sue companies like HTC that only seek to innovate and market their creations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple would claim they invented computers and patent "using a mouse".Then, they would sue companies like HTC that only seek to innovate and market their creations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360678</id>
	<title>Rinux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267731060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rinux 4 lolz.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rinux 4 lolz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rinux 4 lolz.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846</id>
	<title>Why is the Linux community so quiet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267731840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why the Linux developers are so quiet about this.  Microsoft is building up a huge amount of momentum around the idea that Linux violates some arbitrary patents, and not a single Linux developer or company appears willing to call them out on it.  Bizarre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why the Linux developers are so quiet about this .
Microsoft is building up a huge amount of momentum around the idea that Linux violates some arbitrary patents , and not a single Linux developer or company appears willing to call them out on it .
Bizarre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why the Linux developers are so quiet about this.
Microsoft is building up a huge amount of momentum around the idea that Linux violates some arbitrary patents, and not a single Linux developer or company appears willing to call them out on it.
Bizarre.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31362832</id>
	<title>Re:Any word on what patents?</title>
	<author>fritsd</author>
	<datestamp>1267698120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Which makes me wonder, is Microsoft asserting patents which cover Samba, perhaps?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
That's actually one thing we can be quite sure of they *won't* dare sue anybody for, because they just lost an anti-trust lawsuit about file server interoperability in 2004:
<a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&amp;guiLanguage=en" title="europa.eu">Commission concludes on Microsoft investigation, imposes conduct remedies and a fine </a> [europa.eu]
<br>
From the appeal decision:
<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&amp;num=79958777T1904\%20R0201\_2&amp;doc=T&amp;ouvert=T&amp;seance=ORD" title="europa.eu">Order of the President of the Court of First Instance</a> [europa.eu]
<br>
The verdict:</p><blockquote><div><p>III &ndash; The remedies and fine imposed on Microsoft
<br>
26
The two abuses which the Commission identified in the Decision were penalised by the imposition of a fine amounting to EUR 497 196 304 (Article 3 of the Decision).
<br>
27
Moreover, Microsoft was required, under Article 4 of the Decision, to bring to an end the abuses established in Article 2 in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the Decision. <b>Microsoft is also required to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in Article 2 and from any act or conduct having the same or equivalent object or effect.</b>[emphasis mine]
<br>
28
By way of remedy for the abusive refusal identified in the Decision, Article 5 of the Decision orders Microsoft to act as follows:
<br>
&lsquo;(a) Microsoft  shall, within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision, make the interoperability information available to any undertaking having an interest in developing and distributing work group server operating system products and shall, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, allow the use of the interoperability information by such undertakings for the purpose of developing and distributing work group server operating system products;
<br>
(b)    Microsoft  shall ensure that the interoperability information made available is kept updated on an ongoing basis and in a timely manner;
<br>
(c)    Microsoft  shall, within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision, set up an evaluation mechanism that will give interested undertakings a workable possibility of informing themselves about the scope and terms of use of the interoperability information; as regards this evaluation mechanism, Microsoft  may impose reasonable and non-discriminatory conditions to ensure that access to the interoperability information is granted for evaluation purposes only;</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I can't find much about Samba, but item 178 reads:</p><blockquote><div><p>(...) Neither is it obvious to the Commission that a competitor of Microsoft taking advantage of the implementation of the Decision will be infringing some of the claims in those patents. The doubts expressed as to whether a developer of server software using the relevant protocols in order to communicate with Windows clients would infringe the claims in question are confirmed by Microsoft&rsquo;s behaviour towards Samba, an &lsquo;open source&rsquo; product which implements certain Microsoft communications protocols that the Samba group developers have identified using reverse-engineering techniques. Samba appears to have incorporated SMB&rsquo;s &lsquo;opportunistic locking&rsquo; as early as January 1998 (version 1.9.18) and Dfs as early as April 2001 (version 2.2.0). So far as the Commission is aware, the Samba group has never licensed the patents in question from Microsoft and Microsoft has never claimed that its patents were being infringed by the Samba group.(...)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
and item 185 (this is a claim by the prosecutor, FSFE)</p><blockquote><div><p>185
FSF-Europe submits, in essence, that the information which the Decision requires Microsoft to disclose has little value in terms of innovation and contains a number of incompatibilities deliberately introduced in pre-existing written protocols. Microsoft&rsquo;s approach consists in adopting pre-existing protocols and then altering them with the aim of preventing or prohibiting interoperability. It has acted in that way in regard to several work group server protocols, disclosure of which the Samba group sought in order to create a compatible product, namely the CIFS, DCE/RPC (Distributed Computing Environment/Remote Procedure Call), DCE/RCP IDL (&lsquo;Interface Definition Language&rsquo;), Kerberos 5 et LDAP (Active Directory) protocols.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
IANAL, but I think there is something to be said that implementing a patented filesystem (VFAT) on a removable storage device (memory stick, TomTom) *with the express purpose* that it has to be that specific patented filesystem for interop purposes with the customers of the (monopolist) licensor, should not invite said licensor to come down like a ton of bricks on various and sundry licensees to extort money from them for infringing their precious IP.
<br>
Besides, aren't there a few of the 59 filesystems that Linux supports that are especially suited for memory sticks, SSD, SD cards etc?
<br>
Maybe the storage vendors should get their act together instead of being sued one by one by Microsoft for a not even very good filesystem that they only provide for compatibility reasons in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which makes me wonder , is Microsoft asserting patents which cover Samba , perhaps ?
That 's actually one thing we can be quite sure of they * wo n't * dare sue anybody for , because they just lost an anti-trust lawsuit about file server interoperability in 2004 : Commission concludes on Microsoft investigation , imposes conduct remedies and a fine [ europa.eu ] From the appeal decision : Order of the President of the Court of First Instance [ europa.eu ] The verdict : III    The remedies and fine imposed on Microsoft 26 The two abuses which the Commission identified in the Decision were penalised by the imposition of a fine amounting to EUR 497 196 304 ( Article 3 of the Decision ) .
27 Moreover , Microsoft was required , under Article 4 of the Decision , to bring to an end the abuses established in Article 2 in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the Decision .
Microsoft is also required to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in Article 2 and from any act or conduct having the same or equivalent object or effect .
[ emphasis mine ] 28 By way of remedy for the abusive refusal identified in the Decision , Article 5 of the Decision orders Microsoft to act as follows :    ( a ) Microsoft shall , within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision , make the interoperability information available to any undertaking having an interest in developing and distributing work group server operating system products and shall , on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms , allow the use of the interoperability information by such undertakings for the purpose of developing and distributing work group server operating system products ; ( b ) Microsoft shall ensure that the interoperability information made available is kept updated on an ongoing basis and in a timely manner ; ( c ) Microsoft shall , within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision , set up an evaluation mechanism that will give interested undertakings a workable possibility of informing themselves about the scope and terms of use of the interoperability information ; as regards this evaluation mechanism , Microsoft may impose reasonable and non-discriminatory conditions to ensure that access to the interoperability information is granted for evaluation purposes only ; I ca n't find much about Samba , but item 178 reads : ( ... ) Neither is it obvious to the Commission that a competitor of Microsoft taking advantage of the implementation of the Decision will be infringing some of the claims in those patents .
The doubts expressed as to whether a developer of server software using the relevant protocols in order to communicate with Windows clients would infringe the claims in question are confirmed by Microsoft    s behaviour towards Samba , an    open source    product which implements certain Microsoft communications protocols that the Samba group developers have identified using reverse-engineering techniques .
Samba appears to have incorporated SMB    s    opportunistic locking    as early as January 1998 ( version 1.9.18 ) and Dfs as early as April 2001 ( version 2.2.0 ) .
So far as the Commission is aware , the Samba group has never licensed the patents in question from Microsoft and Microsoft has never claimed that its patents were being infringed by the Samba group. ( .. .
) and item 185 ( this is a claim by the prosecutor , FSFE ) 185 FSF-Europe submits , in essence , that the information which the Decision requires Microsoft to disclose has little value in terms of innovation and contains a number of incompatibilities deliberately introduced in pre-existing written protocols .
Microsoft    s approach consists in adopting pre-existing protocols and then altering them with the aim of preventing or prohibiting interoperability .
It has acted in that way in regard to several work group server protocols , disclosure of which the Samba group sought in order to create a compatible product , namely the CIFS , DCE/RPC ( Distributed Computing Environment/Remote Procedure Call ) , DCE/RCP IDL (    Interface Definition Language    ) , Kerberos 5 et LDAP ( Active Directory ) protocols .
IANAL , but I think there is something to be said that implementing a patented filesystem ( VFAT ) on a removable storage device ( memory stick , TomTom ) * with the express purpose * that it has to be that specific patented filesystem for interop purposes with the customers of the ( monopolist ) licensor , should not invite said licensor to come down like a ton of bricks on various and sundry licensees to extort money from them for infringing their precious IP .
Besides , are n't there a few of the 59 filesystems that Linux supports that are especially suited for memory sticks , SSD , SD cards etc ?
Maybe the storage vendors should get their act together instead of being sued one by one by Microsoft for a not even very good filesystem that they only provide for compatibility reasons in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which makes me wonder, is Microsoft asserting patents which cover Samba, perhaps?
That's actually one thing we can be quite sure of they *won't* dare sue anybody for, because they just lost an anti-trust lawsuit about file server interoperability in 2004:
Commission concludes on Microsoft investigation, imposes conduct remedies and a fine  [europa.eu]

From the appeal decision:
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance [europa.eu]

The verdict:III – The remedies and fine imposed on Microsoft

26
The two abuses which the Commission identified in the Decision were penalised by the imposition of a fine amounting to EUR 497 196 304 (Article 3 of the Decision).
27
Moreover, Microsoft was required, under Article 4 of the Decision, to bring to an end the abuses established in Article 2 in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the Decision.
Microsoft is also required to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in Article 2 and from any act or conduct having the same or equivalent object or effect.
[emphasis mine]

28
By way of remedy for the abusive refusal identified in the Decision, Article 5 of the Decision orders Microsoft to act as follows:

‘(a) Microsoft  shall, within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision, make the interoperability information available to any undertaking having an interest in developing and distributing work group server operating system products and shall, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, allow the use of the interoperability information by such undertakings for the purpose of developing and distributing work group server operating system products;

(b)    Microsoft  shall ensure that the interoperability information made available is kept updated on an ongoing basis and in a timely manner;

(c)    Microsoft  shall, within 120 days of the date of notification of this Decision, set up an evaluation mechanism that will give interested undertakings a workable possibility of informing themselves about the scope and terms of use of the interoperability information; as regards this evaluation mechanism, Microsoft  may impose reasonable and non-discriminatory conditions to ensure that access to the interoperability information is granted for evaluation purposes only;

I can't find much about Samba, but item 178 reads:(...) Neither is it obvious to the Commission that a competitor of Microsoft taking advantage of the implementation of the Decision will be infringing some of the claims in those patents.
The doubts expressed as to whether a developer of server software using the relevant protocols in order to communicate with Windows clients would infringe the claims in question are confirmed by Microsoft’s behaviour towards Samba, an ‘open source’ product which implements certain Microsoft communications protocols that the Samba group developers have identified using reverse-engineering techniques.
Samba appears to have incorporated SMB’s ‘opportunistic locking’ as early as January 1998 (version 1.9.18) and Dfs as early as April 2001 (version 2.2.0).
So far as the Commission is aware, the Samba group has never licensed the patents in question from Microsoft and Microsoft has never claimed that its patents were being infringed by the Samba group.(...
)

and item 185 (this is a claim by the prosecutor, FSFE)185
FSF-Europe submits, in essence, that the information which the Decision requires Microsoft to disclose has little value in terms of innovation and contains a number of incompatibilities deliberately introduced in pre-existing written protocols.
Microsoft’s approach consists in adopting pre-existing protocols and then altering them with the aim of preventing or prohibiting interoperability.
It has acted in that way in regard to several work group server protocols, disclosure of which the Samba group sought in order to create a compatible product, namely the CIFS, DCE/RPC (Distributed Computing Environment/Remote Procedure Call), DCE/RCP IDL (‘Interface Definition Language’), Kerberos 5 et LDAP (Active Directory) protocols.
IANAL, but I think there is something to be said that implementing a patented filesystem (VFAT) on a removable storage device (memory stick, TomTom) *with the express purpose* that it has to be that specific patented filesystem for interop purposes with the customers of the (monopolist) licensor, should not invite said licensor to come down like a ton of bricks on various and sundry licensees to extort money from them for infringing their precious IP.
Besides, aren't there a few of the 59 filesystems that Linux supports that are especially suited for memory sticks, SSD, SD cards etc?
Maybe the storage vendors should get their act together instead of being sued one by one by Microsoft for a not even very good filesystem that they only provide for compatibility reasons in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361016</id>
	<title>When the Supreme Court invalidates software patent</title>
	<author>kawabago</author>
	<datestamp>1267732620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the Supreme Court invalidates software patents all these companies can go back to Microsoft and demand their money back.  That should be fun to watch!</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Supreme Court invalidates software patents all these companies can go back to Microsoft and demand their money back .
That should be fun to watch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Supreme Court invalidates software patents all these companies can go back to Microsoft and demand their money back.
That should be fun to watch!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361536</id>
	<title>IO Data has gotten into trouble before</title>
	<author>Kagato</author>
	<datestamp>1267735260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IO Data is a big name in Japan.  They sell a lot of Computer and AV devices.  In the US they aren't that big anymore.  IO data was a pioneer in the Network Equipped Up-Converting DVD player.  Not only could it play UPnP file sources, it could output them up to 1080i.</p><p>That's when they ran into trouble.  Their HD player had nice Analog Component outputs to upconvert DVDs.  That got them in trouble with license holders for DVD.  Which wouldn't have happened except they started expanding in US, and then the guys at the MPAA started taking interest.  I think they are a bit gun shy after that.  So I can understand folding to Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IO Data is a big name in Japan .
They sell a lot of Computer and AV devices .
In the US they are n't that big anymore .
IO data was a pioneer in the Network Equipped Up-Converting DVD player .
Not only could it play UPnP file sources , it could output them up to 1080i.That 's when they ran into trouble .
Their HD player had nice Analog Component outputs to upconvert DVDs .
That got them in trouble with license holders for DVD .
Which would n't have happened except they started expanding in US , and then the guys at the MPAA started taking interest .
I think they are a bit gun shy after that .
So I can understand folding to Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IO Data is a big name in Japan.
They sell a lot of Computer and AV devices.
In the US they aren't that big anymore.
IO data was a pioneer in the Network Equipped Up-Converting DVD player.
Not only could it play UPnP file sources, it could output them up to 1080i.That's when they ran into trouble.
Their HD player had nice Analog Component outputs to upconvert DVDs.
That got them in trouble with license holders for DVD.
Which wouldn't have happened except they started expanding in US, and then the guys at the MPAA started taking interest.
I think they are a bit gun shy after that.
So I can understand folding to Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361208</id>
	<title>Re:FFS! What patents !!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267733580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The company may be outside the US, but if they want to sell their product in the US (directly or through an importer) they need proper licensing of other's technologies. Now, wether this patents are actually meaningful is an entirely separate issue...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company may be outside the US , but if they want to sell their product in the US ( directly or through an importer ) they need proper licensing of other 's technologies .
Now , wether this patents are actually meaningful is an entirely separate issue.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company may be outside the US, but if they want to sell their product in the US (directly or through an importer) they need proper licensing of other's technologies.
Now, wether this patents are actually meaningful is an entirely separate issue...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31364112</id>
	<title>Re:Soprano style</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1267703520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That's a nice open source project you have there.</p><p>Pity if anything were to happen to it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That 's a nice open source project you have there.Pity if anything were to happen to it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That's a nice open source project you have there.Pity if anything were to happen to it.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361244</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is...</title>
	<author>TyFoN</author>
	<datestamp>1267733880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fool and his money are soon parted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fool and his money are soon parted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fool and his money are soon parted</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360852</id>
	<title>It's t use Windows 7 API on sensors</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1267731840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I-O Data released one of the industry's first Windows 7 API-based sensors, which automatically detects when a person enters or leaves an office or room.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So basically, they are licensing Windows stuff. Nothing to see here.  Also, while Novell did a patent deal wit Microsoft, it did NOT do a deal wrt linux, as there's no Microsoft code in linux (and most of us are smart enough to remove the potentially-encumbered mono-base from opensuse).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I-O Data released one of the industry 's first Windows 7 API-based sensors , which automatically detects when a person enters or leaves an office or room .
So basically , they are licensing Windows stuff .
Nothing to see here .
Also , while Novell did a patent deal wit Microsoft , it did NOT do a deal wrt linux , as there 's no Microsoft code in linux ( and most of us are smart enough to remove the potentially-encumbered mono-base from opensuse ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I-O Data released one of the industry's first Windows 7 API-based sensors, which automatically detects when a person enters or leaves an office or room.
So basically, they are licensing Windows stuff.
Nothing to see here.
Also, while Novell did a patent deal wit Microsoft, it did NOT do a deal wrt linux, as there's no Microsoft code in linux (and most of us are smart enough to remove the potentially-encumbered mono-base from opensuse).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361108</id>
	<title>I hope this wasn't because of the VFAT issue</title>
	<author>apexwm</author>
	<datestamp>1267733100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As Linux has been fixed to not offend Microsoft's FAT32/VFAT patent.  If these companies think that they are voilating this patent, they should do their own research or fix it so that they don't have to pay royalties to Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Linux has been fixed to not offend Microsoft 's FAT32/VFAT patent .
If these companies think that they are voilating this patent , they should do their own research or fix it so that they do n't have to pay royalties to Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Linux has been fixed to not offend Microsoft's FAT32/VFAT patent.
If these companies think that they are voilating this patent, they should do their own research or fix it so that they don't have to pay royalties to Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360866</id>
	<title>Has anyone really figured out what the patents are</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1267731900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know that I've ever seen exactly what patents MS might have...
<p>
About the only thing I can come up with is either FAT32 or NT filesystems, which *would* make sense in the case of IO Data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know that I 've ever seen exactly what patents MS might have.. . About the only thing I can come up with is either FAT32 or NT filesystems , which * would * make sense in the case of IO Data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know that I've ever seen exactly what patents MS might have...

About the only thing I can come up with is either FAT32 or NT filesystems, which *would* make sense in the case of IO Data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361328</id>
	<title>A more accurate analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a nice car you have there.  You know I have evidence that it is stolen.  No I won't show you that evidence, but if you pay me I won't go to the police with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a nice car you have there .
You know I have evidence that it is stolen .
No I wo n't show you that evidence , but if you pay me I wo n't go to the police with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a nice car you have there.
You know I have evidence that it is stolen.
No I won't show you that evidence, but if you pay me I won't go to the police with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31368868</id>
	<title>Re:Any word on what patents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267785660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are referring to Trademarks.  If a Trademark owner does not stop general use of the TM (perfect example of this at the moment is the generic use of Gib board in New Zealand, it's become in general use, which means the Trademark is stuffed). However, patents are different.  You don't sue every small manufacturer who copies your design, it's not worth it.</p><p>Patents != Copyright != Trademarks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are referring to Trademarks .
If a Trademark owner does not stop general use of the TM ( perfect example of this at the moment is the generic use of Gib board in New Zealand , it 's become in general use , which means the Trademark is stuffed ) .
However , patents are different .
You do n't sue every small manufacturer who copies your design , it 's not worth it.Patents ! = Copyright ! = Trademarks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are referring to Trademarks.
If a Trademark owner does not stop general use of the TM (perfect example of this at the moment is the generic use of Gib board in New Zealand, it's become in general use, which means the Trademark is stuffed).
However, patents are different.
You don't sue every small manufacturer who copies your design, it's not worth it.Patents != Copyright != Trademarks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361390</id>
	<title>Re:Distributions?</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1267734540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How long before they start hitting up specific distributions with their claims?</p></div><p>Does the company developing Suse not count?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before they start hitting up specific distributions with their claims ? Does the company developing Suse not count ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before they start hitting up specific distributions with their claims?Does the company developing Suse not count?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361818</id>
	<title>Re:It's t use Windows 7 API on sensors</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1267693320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are then twice as stupid: who would build a "windows 7 API - based sensor"? Thats just dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are then twice as stupid : who would build a " windows 7 API - based sensor " ?
Thats just dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are then twice as stupid: who would build a "windows 7 API - based sensor"?
Thats just dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360816</id>
	<title>Microsoft is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267731720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A mean bunch of bastards for claiming patents and not disclosing any kind of infringement. But the ones that buy into the scam, man, those are PLAIN IDIOTS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A mean bunch of bastards for claiming patents and not disclosing any kind of infringement .
But the ones that buy into the scam , man , those are PLAIN IDIOTS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mean bunch of bastards for claiming patents and not disclosing any kind of infringement.
But the ones that buy into the scam, man, those are PLAIN IDIOTS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361130</id>
	<title>Of Course Not!</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1267733160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I love how none of these articles include any info on which patents were licensed. If Microsoft has patents which cover algorithms in Linux, then there should be a list of patents numbers they can point to to say which patents are being covered in these License Agreements.</p></div><p>Don't hold your breath.  Not releasing what is being licensed is probably part of the licensing contract.  They might even have a patent pending on that business method.  We tried asking them which patents Linux infringed on but <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/24/1916203" title="slashdot.org">they're too busy to list them all</a> [slashdot.org].  They'll throw out numbers though like "<a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/14/0018242" title="slashdot.org">235 patents free software violates</a> [slashdot.org] that are ours!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how none of these articles include any info on which patents were licensed .
If Microsoft has patents which cover algorithms in Linux , then there should be a list of patents numbers they can point to to say which patents are being covered in these License Agreements.Do n't hold your breath .
Not releasing what is being licensed is probably part of the licensing contract .
They might even have a patent pending on that business method .
We tried asking them which patents Linux infringed on but they 're too busy to list them all [ slashdot.org ] .
They 'll throw out numbers though like " 235 patents free software violates [ slashdot.org ] that are ours !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how none of these articles include any info on which patents were licensed.
If Microsoft has patents which cover algorithms in Linux, then there should be a list of patents numbers they can point to to say which patents are being covered in these License Agreements.Don't hold your breath.
Not releasing what is being licensed is probably part of the licensing contract.
They might even have a patent pending on that business method.
We tried asking them which patents Linux infringed on but they're too busy to list them all [slashdot.org].
They'll throw out numbers though like "235 patents free software violates [slashdot.org] that are ours!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360898</id>
	<title>Re:North Korea</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1267732080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would make more sense than the evidence use the invade Iraq.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would make more sense than the evidence use the invade Iraq .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would make more sense than the evidence use the invade Iraq.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360842</id>
	<title>But, but ...</title>
	<author>Lord Grey</author>
	<datestamp>1267731840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I thought the first rule of Linux Patents is you do not talk about Linux Patents.
</p><p>
What happened?  Did someone not bend over far enough?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the first rule of Linux Patents is you do not talk about Linux Patents .
What happened ?
Did someone not bend over far enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I thought the first rule of Linux Patents is you do not talk about Linux Patents.
What happened?
Did someone not bend over far enough?
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363294</id>
	<title>Re:It's t use Windows 7 API on sensors</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1267699680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Nobody would be violating your patent because it's non-patentable. "Method and <b>device</b> for implementing a linked list"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... stands a small chance. Patents require a specific implementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody would be violating your patent because it 's non-patentable .
" Method and device for implementing a linked list " ... stands a small chance .
Patents require a specific implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Nobody would be violating your patent because it's non-patentable.
"Method and device for implementing a linked list" ... stands a small chance.
Patents require a specific implementation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360864</id>
	<title>Hey Japan....</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1267731900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...kowtow much?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...kowtow much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...kowtow much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361304</id>
	<title>qui tam</title>
	<author>prgrmr</author>
	<datestamp>1267734120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this not a potential <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui\_tam" title="wikipedia.org">qui tam</a> [wikipedia.org] suit just begging to be initiated?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this not a potential qui tam [ wikipedia.org ] suit just begging to be initiated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this not a potential qui tam [wikipedia.org] suit just begging to be initiated?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360912</id>
	<title>More likely creative marketing, and FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267732140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is not much of a reason to write a press release about these licensing agreements and patent covenants, other than to spread FUD in the Linux marketplace.  Since the alleged intellectual property in question hasn't been put into the open, and IO is a storage company, one can assume the agreement surrounds the FAT filesystem IP: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow"> MICROSOFT EFI FAT32 FILE SYSTEM SPECIFICATION
   LICENSE AGREEMENT</a> [microsoft.com]
<br> <br>
My hunch is this is then an covenant regarding "Microsoft technology patents that can be used in a product built on a Linux foundation"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..  or I guess "Linux Patents" for short then.  Creative marketing, to make it sound like this glorious Linux stuff is really Microsoft's work.  It you can't beat 'em, FUD 'em.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is not much of a reason to write a press release about these licensing agreements and patent covenants , other than to spread FUD in the Linux marketplace .
Since the alleged intellectual property in question has n't been put into the open , and IO is a storage company , one can assume the agreement surrounds the FAT filesystem IP : MICROSOFT EFI FAT32 FILE SYSTEM SPECIFICATION LICENSE AGREEMENT [ microsoft.com ] My hunch is this is then an covenant regarding " Microsoft technology patents that can be used in a product built on a Linux foundation " .. or I guess " Linux Patents " for short then .
Creative marketing , to make it sound like this glorious Linux stuff is really Microsoft 's work .
It you ca n't beat 'em , FUD 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is not much of a reason to write a press release about these licensing agreements and patent covenants, other than to spread FUD in the Linux marketplace.
Since the alleged intellectual property in question hasn't been put into the open, and IO is a storage company, one can assume the agreement surrounds the FAT filesystem IP:  MICROSOFT EFI FAT32 FILE SYSTEM SPECIFICATION
   LICENSE AGREEMENT [microsoft.com]
 
My hunch is this is then an covenant regarding "Microsoft technology patents that can be used in a product built on a Linux foundation" ..  or I guess "Linux Patents" for short then.
Creative marketing, to make it sound like this glorious Linux stuff is really Microsoft's work.
It you can't beat 'em, FUD 'em.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360748</id>
	<title>Soprano style</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267731360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might be holding a club behind my back.  Should I choose to begin swinging this club, which I may or may not have, I can guarantee that I will not strike you with it, for a small fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might be holding a club behind my back .
Should I choose to begin swinging this club , which I may or may not have , I can guarantee that I will not strike you with it , for a small fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might be holding a club behind my back.
Should I choose to begin swinging this club, which I may or may not have, I can guarantee that I will not strike you with it, for a small fee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31379792</id>
	<title>They aren't quiet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267874760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that we have companies benefitting from Linux, and to be fari, contributing to it, who have no qualms  backstabbing the community that makes their business possible.</p><p>I wonder what will they do the day all the Linux community decides to take thier marbles to play elsewhere (using GPL 3 for a new operating system based on Linux) and letting them to support on their own their current offerings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that we have companies benefitting from Linux , and to be fari , contributing to it , who have no qualms backstabbing the community that makes their business possible.I wonder what will they do the day all the Linux community decides to take thier marbles to play elsewhere ( using GPL 3 for a new operating system based on Linux ) and letting them to support on their own their current offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that we have companies benefitting from Linux, and to be fari, contributing to it, who have no qualms  backstabbing the community that makes their business possible.I wonder what will they do the day all the Linux community decides to take thier marbles to play elsewhere (using GPL 3 for a new operating system based on Linux) and letting them to support on their own their current offerings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31362374</id>
	<title>Re:It's t use Windows 7 API on sensors</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1267696260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mono is no longer "potentially encumbered."</p><p>At this point, the only risk with Mono is that Microsoft could fork the project into something that isn't free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is no longer " potentially encumbered .
" At this point , the only risk with Mono is that Microsoft could fork the project into something that is n't free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is no longer "potentially encumbered.
"At this point, the only risk with Mono is that Microsoft could fork the project into something that isn't free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360882</id>
	<title>FFS! What patents !!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267732020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Again they still do not actually say what specific patents !<br> <br>

This should be criminal, the Linux foundations should sue for libel damage.<br> <br>

Fuck it, maybe we all contact companies and ask for money for breaking our imaginary patents.<br> <br>

Also this company is out the USA, do they have crazy software patent laws too.<br> <br>

Thank god for the EU (I never thought i'd say those words)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Again they still do not actually say what specific patents !
This should be criminal , the Linux foundations should sue for libel damage .
Fuck it , maybe we all contact companies and ask for money for breaking our imaginary patents .
Also this company is out the USA , do they have crazy software patent laws too .
Thank god for the EU ( I never thought i 'd say those words )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again they still do not actually say what specific patents !
This should be criminal, the Linux foundations should sue for libel damage.
Fuck it, maybe we all contact companies and ask for money for breaking our imaginary patents.
Also this company is out the USA, do they have crazy software patent laws too.
Thank god for the EU (I never thought i'd say those words)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361068</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft is...</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1267732860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, maybe not.  First off, they do get press coverage from the deal.  Second, does it make Microsoft junkies and fanbois more willing to use their product (Yeah, it runs linux, but it's "Microsoft Licensed Linux"(TM))?  Third and finally are they getting anything directly from MS because of it (I know TFS said that IOData was "compensating" MS, but surely MS wants them to license (so it has more power in court later to say "look, these other companies saw what we were doing is right.  You were just trying to 'put it to us' by not respecting our patents") and is giving them something either on the side or under the table)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , maybe not .
First off , they do get press coverage from the deal .
Second , does it make Microsoft junkies and fanbois more willing to use their product ( Yeah , it runs linux , but it 's " Microsoft Licensed Linux " ( TM ) ) ?
Third and finally are they getting anything directly from MS because of it ( I know TFS said that IOData was " compensating " MS , but surely MS wants them to license ( so it has more power in court later to say " look , these other companies saw what we were doing is right .
You were just trying to 'put it to us ' by not respecting our patents " ) and is giving them something either on the side or under the table ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, maybe not.
First off, they do get press coverage from the deal.
Second, does it make Microsoft junkies and fanbois more willing to use their product (Yeah, it runs linux, but it's "Microsoft Licensed Linux"(TM))?
Third and finally are they getting anything directly from MS because of it (I know TFS said that IOData was "compensating" MS, but surely MS wants them to license (so it has more power in court later to say "look, these other companies saw what we were doing is right.
You were just trying to 'put it to us' by not respecting our patents") and is giving them something either on the side or under the table)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360908</id>
	<title>Prior Art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267732140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there Exist documentation that some invention was used before the patent
was issued the patent is invalid.
<br> <br>
The problem is that the open  source community doe not have the
central power structure and money for defence, <br>EFF? <br> any one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there Exist documentation that some invention was used before the patent was issued the patent is invalid .
The problem is that the open source community doe not have the central power structure and money for defence , EFF ?
any one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there Exist documentation that some invention was used before the patent
was issued the patent is invalid.
The problem is that the open  source community doe not have the
central power structure and money for defence, EFF?
any one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31364664</id>
	<title>Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet?</title>
	<author>chowdahhead</author>
	<datestamp>1267705800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure that developers are challenging Microsoft's claims, as much as they are appealing for the patents to be fully disclosed, so any legitimate violations can be coded around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that developers are challenging Microsoft 's claims , as much as they are appealing for the patents to be fully disclosed , so any legitimate violations can be coded around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure that developers are challenging Microsoft's claims, as much as they are appealing for the patents to be fully disclosed, so any legitimate violations can be coded around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363572</id>
	<title>Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet?</title>
	<author>andydread</author>
	<datestamp>1267701000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly? I don't think the developers really care.  As long as they can bury their heads in the guts of the kernel and write code then they will probably never care.  I am not even sure if they care if anyone else runs Linux.  Just as long as they can write code and run it on their own PCs then that good enough.  They couldn't give a crap less about the marketplace and the extortion racket that Microsoft is running.   Just as long as Microsoft is not suing them then we probably won't hear a thing from them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly ?
I do n't think the developers really care .
As long as they can bury their heads in the guts of the kernel and write code then they will probably never care .
I am not even sure if they care if anyone else runs Linux .
Just as long as they can write code and run it on their own PCs then that good enough .
They could n't give a crap less about the marketplace and the extortion racket that Microsoft is running .
Just as long as Microsoft is not suing them then we probably wo n't hear a thing from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly?
I don't think the developers really care.
As long as they can bury their heads in the guts of the kernel and write code then they will probably never care.
I am not even sure if they care if anyone else runs Linux.
Just as long as they can write code and run it on their own PCs then that good enough.
They couldn't give a crap less about the marketplace and the extortion racket that Microsoft is running.
Just as long as Microsoft is not suing them then we probably won't hear a thing from them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363614</id>
	<title>Re:It's t use Windows 7 API on sensors</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1267701180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So basically, they are licensing Windows stuff. Nothing to see here. Also, while Novell did a patent deal wit Microsoft, it did NOT do a deal wrt linux, as there's no Microsoft code in linux (and most of us are smart enough to remove the potentially-encumbered mono-base from opensuse).</i> <br> <br>
Actually, most of us are smart enough to not use opensuse in the first place. Not trying to be facetious, just noting that opensuse's market share is not large enough for this to really be a concern, is it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically , they are licensing Windows stuff .
Nothing to see here .
Also , while Novell did a patent deal wit Microsoft , it did NOT do a deal wrt linux , as there 's no Microsoft code in linux ( and most of us are smart enough to remove the potentially-encumbered mono-base from opensuse ) .
Actually , most of us are smart enough to not use opensuse in the first place .
Not trying to be facetious , just noting that opensuse 's market share is not large enough for this to really be a concern , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically, they are licensing Windows stuff.
Nothing to see here.
Also, while Novell did a patent deal wit Microsoft, it did NOT do a deal wrt linux, as there's no Microsoft code in linux (and most of us are smart enough to remove the potentially-encumbered mono-base from opensuse).
Actually, most of us are smart enough to not use opensuse in the first place.
Not trying to be facetious, just noting that opensuse's market share is not large enough for this to really be a concern, is it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361384</id>
	<title>Re:Any word on what patents?</title>
	<author>ubercam</author>
	<datestamp>1267734480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I think the principle of law you're thinking of refers to trademark issues, not copyright. I believe you can nail someone any time for copyright infringement, even way after the fact (there might be a statute of limitations though), but if you let a trademark violation slide, you're unable to defend it later on, i.e. you have to act as soon as you're aware of it or you could potentially lose it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no lawyer , nor do I play one on TV , but I think the principle of law you 're thinking of refers to trademark issues , not copyright .
I believe you can nail someone any time for copyright infringement , even way after the fact ( there might be a statute of limitations though ) , but if you let a trademark violation slide , you 're unable to defend it later on , i.e .
you have to act as soon as you 're aware of it or you could potentially lose it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I think the principle of law you're thinking of refers to trademark issues, not copyright.
I believe you can nail someone any time for copyright infringement, even way after the fact (there might be a statute of limitations though), but if you let a trademark violation slide, you're unable to defend it later on, i.e.
you have to act as soon as you're aware of it or you could potentially lose it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361446</id>
	<title>Slander of Title?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1267734720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me (IANAL) that Microsoft is potentially engaging in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander\_of\_title" title="wikipedia.org">slander of title</a> [wikipedia.org] against Linux.  Couldn't IBM, or any company that's contributed to the Linux kernel, sue Microsoft for this, and force MS to enumerate the alleged violations during the trial if not during discovery?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me ( IANAL ) that Microsoft is potentially engaging in slander of title [ wikipedia.org ] against Linux .
Could n't IBM , or any company that 's contributed to the Linux kernel , sue Microsoft for this , and force MS to enumerate the alleged violations during the trial if not during discovery ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me (IANAL) that Microsoft is potentially engaging in slander of title [wikipedia.org] against Linux.
Couldn't IBM, or any company that's contributed to the Linux kernel, sue Microsoft for this, and force MS to enumerate the alleged violations during the trial if not during discovery?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361278</id>
	<title>Re:It's t use Windows 7 API on sensors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There doesn't have to be any Microsoft code in Linux.  Patents are on methods, not the specific implementation.  So if I patent the Linked List, then anyone who independently re-invents the linked list is "violating" my patent, even if they never heard of it before and wrote all their own code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There does n't have to be any Microsoft code in Linux .
Patents are on methods , not the specific implementation .
So if I patent the Linked List , then anyone who independently re-invents the linked list is " violating " my patent , even if they never heard of it before and wrote all their own code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There doesn't have to be any Microsoft code in Linux.
Patents are on methods, not the specific implementation.
So if I patent the Linked List, then anyone who independently re-invents the linked list is "violating" my patent, even if they never heard of it before and wrote all their own code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363562</id>
	<title>Re:Any word on what patents?</title>
	<author>Andorin</author>
	<datestamp>1267701000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If they have patents, they should come out and tell the Linux developers and the world which patents supposedly are infringing.</p></div></blockquote><p>
And immediately afterward the Linux developers pull the infringing code, denying Microsoft the leverage they currently have that lets them do things like this. So, why would MS disclose the patents?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they have patents , they should come out and tell the Linux developers and the world which patents supposedly are infringing .
And immediately afterward the Linux developers pull the infringing code , denying Microsoft the leverage they currently have that lets them do things like this .
So , why would MS disclose the patents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they have patents, they should come out and tell the Linux developers and the world which patents supposedly are infringing.
And immediately afterward the Linux developers pull the infringing code, denying Microsoft the leverage they currently have that lets them do things like this.
So, why would MS disclose the patents?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361814</id>
	<title>Re:Any word on what patents?</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1267693320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's basically the same move SCO pulled. Make huge infringement claims, but refuse to be specific. SCO never was able to show anything in the code, since they had pursued a copyright angle. Not to mention the way they kept dancing around it and saying different things in different courts. MS is smarter than that, playing a patent angle. But eventually they too are going to have to be specific about what infringes, and show why it infringes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's basically the same move SCO pulled .
Make huge infringement claims , but refuse to be specific .
SCO never was able to show anything in the code , since they had pursued a copyright angle .
Not to mention the way they kept dancing around it and saying different things in different courts .
MS is smarter than that , playing a patent angle .
But eventually they too are going to have to be specific about what infringes , and show why it infringes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's basically the same move SCO pulled.
Make huge infringement claims, but refuse to be specific.
SCO never was able to show anything in the code, since they had pursued a copyright angle.
Not to mention the way they kept dancing around it and saying different things in different courts.
MS is smarter than that, playing a patent angle.
But eventually they too are going to have to be specific about what infringes, and show why it infringes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363350</id>
	<title>Re:It's t use Windows 7 API on sensors</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1267699980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The device <b>communicates to Windows</b> using the Windows 7 API. If your customers want this, why is it dumb to sell it to them? Next you'll be saying that a linux-based smart phone shouldn't be able to communicate with vfat-formatted flash memory, or upload to a Windows or Apple device or pc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The device communicates to Windows using the Windows 7 API .
If your customers want this , why is it dumb to sell it to them ?
Next you 'll be saying that a linux-based smart phone should n't be able to communicate with vfat-formatted flash memory , or upload to a Windows or Apple device or pc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The device communicates to Windows using the Windows 7 API.
If your customers want this, why is it dumb to sell it to them?
Next you'll be saying that a linux-based smart phone shouldn't be able to communicate with vfat-formatted flash memory, or upload to a Windows or Apple device or pc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31380828</id>
	<title>Re:Soprano style</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267892040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similar thing happened about 30 years ago to a company that was too big to be disturbed - but DOJ nevertheless broke AT&amp;T up into the baby bells<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Micro$oft appears to be setting itself up to be the next candidate for a court mandated breakup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar thing happened about 30 years ago to a company that was too big to be disturbed - but DOJ nevertheless broke AT&amp;T up into the baby bells ... Micro $ oft appears to be setting itself up to be the next candidate for a court mandated breakup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar thing happened about 30 years ago to a company that was too big to be disturbed - but DOJ nevertheless broke AT&amp;T up into the baby bells ... Micro$oft appears to be setting itself up to be the next candidate for a court mandated breakup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906</id>
	<title>Any word on what patents?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1267732140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how none of these articles include any info on which patents were licensed. If Microsoft has patents which cover algorithms in Linux, then there should be a list of patents numbers they can point to to say which patents are being covered in these License Agreements.</p><p>You know, back when Microsoft sued Tom-Tom, it came out that the patents in question covered certain features of the VFAT filesystem. I don't think that patent would affect Network Attached Storage. After all, if you're using Samba NFS, FTP or HTTP to access the files, it doesn't matter what filesystem is used on the NAS device. One would presume such a device would be using Ext3, Ext4, or maybe XFS or something.</p><p>Which makes me wonder, is Microsoft asserting patents which cover Samba, perhaps? The Linux kernel itself, even if you don't compile VFAT support into the kernel (or use the patched version which supposedly avoids the MS VFAT patents by removing some functionality)?</p><p>Sure seems that this is all a marketing driven FUD campaign, since no one is talking about what patents are in play here. If they have patents, they should come out and tell the Linux developers and the world which patents supposedly are infringing. If they won't tell anyone, then the courts should just put a stop to this crap - it's my understanding that there is a principle of law in many countries, including the U.S., where if you know someone is infringing your patent or copyright, and you don't take action to prevent further damages, you can't get the court to award you those damages. That is, you aren't allowed to 'run up the bill' by continuing to allow infringement to happen, just so you can sue for more money later?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how none of these articles include any info on which patents were licensed .
If Microsoft has patents which cover algorithms in Linux , then there should be a list of patents numbers they can point to to say which patents are being covered in these License Agreements.You know , back when Microsoft sued Tom-Tom , it came out that the patents in question covered certain features of the VFAT filesystem .
I do n't think that patent would affect Network Attached Storage .
After all , if you 're using Samba NFS , FTP or HTTP to access the files , it does n't matter what filesystem is used on the NAS device .
One would presume such a device would be using Ext3 , Ext4 , or maybe XFS or something.Which makes me wonder , is Microsoft asserting patents which cover Samba , perhaps ?
The Linux kernel itself , even if you do n't compile VFAT support into the kernel ( or use the patched version which supposedly avoids the MS VFAT patents by removing some functionality ) ? Sure seems that this is all a marketing driven FUD campaign , since no one is talking about what patents are in play here .
If they have patents , they should come out and tell the Linux developers and the world which patents supposedly are infringing .
If they wo n't tell anyone , then the courts should just put a stop to this crap - it 's my understanding that there is a principle of law in many countries , including the U.S. , where if you know someone is infringing your patent or copyright , and you do n't take action to prevent further damages , you ca n't get the court to award you those damages .
That is , you are n't allowed to 'run up the bill ' by continuing to allow infringement to happen , just so you can sue for more money later ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how none of these articles include any info on which patents were licensed.
If Microsoft has patents which cover algorithms in Linux, then there should be a list of patents numbers they can point to to say which patents are being covered in these License Agreements.You know, back when Microsoft sued Tom-Tom, it came out that the patents in question covered certain features of the VFAT filesystem.
I don't think that patent would affect Network Attached Storage.
After all, if you're using Samba NFS, FTP or HTTP to access the files, it doesn't matter what filesystem is used on the NAS device.
One would presume such a device would be using Ext3, Ext4, or maybe XFS or something.Which makes me wonder, is Microsoft asserting patents which cover Samba, perhaps?
The Linux kernel itself, even if you don't compile VFAT support into the kernel (or use the patched version which supposedly avoids the MS VFAT patents by removing some functionality)?Sure seems that this is all a marketing driven FUD campaign, since no one is talking about what patents are in play here.
If they have patents, they should come out and tell the Linux developers and the world which patents supposedly are infringing.
If they won't tell anyone, then the courts should just put a stop to this crap - it's my understanding that there is a principle of law in many countries, including the U.S., where if you know someone is infringing your patent or copyright, and you don't take action to prevent further damages, you can't get the court to award you those damages.
That is, you aren't allowed to 'run up the bill' by continuing to allow infringement to happen, just so you can sue for more money later?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31362374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31364112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31368172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31380828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31368868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31379792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31362832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31364664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_1728214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31362832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31368868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31364112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31380828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31362374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31368172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31379792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31364664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31363572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_1728214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31360882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_1728214.31361834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
