<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_15_1854220</id>
	<title>Nokia Claims Apple Does "Legal Alchemy" To Mask IP Theft</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268682420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Nokia asked a federal judge last week to toss out Apple's antitrust claims, saying the <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9170378/Apple\_practices\_legal\_alchemy\_to\_mask\_IP\_theft\_claims\_Nokia">iPhone maker indulged in 'legal alchemy'</a> when it tried to divert attention from its infringement of Nokia's intellectual property. The filing was the latest salvo in a battle that began in October 2009 when <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/22/1541220/Nokia-Sues-Apple-For-Patent-Infringement-In-iPhone">handset maker Nokia sued Apple</a>, saying the iPhone infringed on 10 of its patents, and that Apple was trying 'to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation.'  Apple countered in December with <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/12/11/2048248/Apple-Counter-Sues-Nokia-Over-Patents">a lawsuit of its own</a> that not only claimed Nokia infringed 13 of its patents, but that Nokia also violated antitrust law by legally attacking Apple after it declined to pay what it called 'exorbitant royalties' and refused to give Nokia access to iPhone patents. 'These non-patent counterclaims are designed to divert attention away from free-riding off of Nokia's intellectual property, a practice Apple evidently believes should only be of paramount concern when it is the alleged victim,' Nokia charged in the motion. Apple is on a legal roll, having also recently <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/03/02/1557212/Apple-Sues-HTC-For-20-Patent-Violations-In-Phones">sued the maker of Google's Nexus One, HTC</a>, for patent infringement."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Nokia asked a federal judge last week to toss out Apple 's antitrust claims , saying the iPhone maker indulged in 'legal alchemy ' when it tried to divert attention from its infringement of Nokia 's intellectual property .
The filing was the latest salvo in a battle that began in October 2009 when handset maker Nokia sued Apple , saying the iPhone infringed on 10 of its patents , and that Apple was trying 'to get a free ride on the back of Nokia 's innovation .
' Apple countered in December with a lawsuit of its own that not only claimed Nokia infringed 13 of its patents , but that Nokia also violated antitrust law by legally attacking Apple after it declined to pay what it called 'exorbitant royalties ' and refused to give Nokia access to iPhone patents .
'These non-patent counterclaims are designed to divert attention away from free-riding off of Nokia 's intellectual property , a practice Apple evidently believes should only be of paramount concern when it is the alleged victim, ' Nokia charged in the motion .
Apple is on a legal roll , having also recently sued the maker of Google 's Nexus One , HTC , for patent infringement .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Nokia asked a federal judge last week to toss out Apple's antitrust claims, saying the iPhone maker indulged in 'legal alchemy' when it tried to divert attention from its infringement of Nokia's intellectual property.
The filing was the latest salvo in a battle that began in October 2009 when handset maker Nokia sued Apple, saying the iPhone infringed on 10 of its patents, and that Apple was trying 'to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation.
'  Apple countered in December with a lawsuit of its own that not only claimed Nokia infringed 13 of its patents, but that Nokia also violated antitrust law by legally attacking Apple after it declined to pay what it called 'exorbitant royalties' and refused to give Nokia access to iPhone patents.
'These non-patent counterclaims are designed to divert attention away from free-riding off of Nokia's intellectual property, a practice Apple evidently believes should only be of paramount concern when it is the alleged victim,' Nokia charged in the motion.
Apple is on a legal roll, having also recently sued the maker of Google's Nexus One, HTC, for patent infringement.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487260</id>
	<title>Alchemy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Legal Alchemy?  iPad Magic?</p><p>Is this Cupertino we're talking about or Hogwarts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Legal Alchemy ?
iPad Magic ? Is this Cupertino we 're talking about or Hogwarts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legal Alchemy?
iPad Magic?Is this Cupertino we're talking about or Hogwarts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488492</id>
	<title>Re:Corporate Wars</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1268650680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are much less exciting than REAL wars. When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision?</p></div><p>They just need a few more politicians. Patience, chummer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are much less exciting than REAL wars .
When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision ? They just need a few more politicians .
Patience , chummer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are much less exciting than REAL wars.
When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision?They just need a few more politicians.
Patience, chummer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents.  Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.</p></div><p>Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents, but real technology patents. The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents .
Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents , but real technology patents .
The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is , with no real " valuable " intellectual property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents.
Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents, but real technology patents.
The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487670</id>
	<title>Obligatory Jefferson quote :</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268647200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>jefferson as in thomas jefferson</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It has been pretended by some that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.</p></div><p>he basically says patents are bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>jefferson as in thomas jeffersonIt has been pretended by some that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions , and not merely for their own lives , but inheritable to their heirs .
But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all , it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors .
It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject , that no individual has , of natural right , a separate property in an acre of land , for instance .
By an universal law , indeed , whatever , whether fixed or movable , belongs to all men equally and in common , is the property for the moment of him who occupies it , but when he relinquishes the occupation , the property goes with it .
Stable ownership is the gift of social law , and is given late in the progress of society .
It would be curious then , if an idea , the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain , could , of natural right , be claimed in exclusive and stable property .
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property , it is the action of the thinking power called an idea , which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself ; but the moment it is divulged , it forces itself into the possession of every one , and the receiver can not dispossess himself of it .
Its peculiar character , too , is that no one possesses the less , because every other possesses the whole of it .
He who receives an idea from me , receives instruction himself without lessening mine ; as he who lights his taper at mine , receives light without darkening me .
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe , for the moral and mutual instruction of man , and improvement of his condition , seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature , when she made them , like fire , expansible over all space , without lessening their density in any point , and like the air in which we breathe , move , and have our physical being , incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation .
Inventions then can not , in nature , be a subject of property .
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them , as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility , but this may or may not be done , according to the will and convenience of the society , without claim or complaint from anybody .
Accordingly , it is a fact , as far as I am informed , that England was , until we copied her , the only country on earth which ever , by a general law , gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea .
In some other countries it is sometimes done , in a great case , and by a special and personal act , but , generally speaking , other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society ; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention , are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.he basically says patents are bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jefferson as in thomas jeffersonIt has been pretended by some that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs.
But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors.
It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance.
By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it.
Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.
It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.
Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea.
In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.he basically says patents are bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487524</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>linhares</author>
	<datestamp>1268646600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope Bilsky will not invalidate this beautiful <a href="http://ow.ly/1ghNr" title="ow.ly">Patent Troll Patent</a> [ow.ly]; so these Patent Trolls will have to pay up to a Patent Troll for their Patent Trolling.  Imagine this, a monopoly of Patent Trolling!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope Bilsky will not invalidate this beautiful Patent Troll Patent [ ow.ly ] ; so these Patent Trolls will have to pay up to a Patent Troll for their Patent Trolling .
Imagine this , a monopoly of Patent Trolling !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope Bilsky will not invalidate this beautiful Patent Troll Patent [ow.ly]; so these Patent Trolls will have to pay up to a Patent Troll for their Patent Trolling.
Imagine this, a monopoly of Patent Trolling!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31498414</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>mdielmann</author>
	<datestamp>1268764620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From what we've heard Apple demands not only a one-time sales price from the operators (as most other mobile manufacturers do) but also a part of the monthly fee paid by iphone-customers...Apple on the other side might object to being the only GSM-manufacturer that has to pay a monthly fee.</p></div><p>Yes, it would really suck if the only hardware provider to charge monthly fees to the hardware they provide had to pay royalties on said monthly fees.  They are clearly being persecuted for their uniqueness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what we 've heard Apple demands not only a one-time sales price from the operators ( as most other mobile manufacturers do ) but also a part of the monthly fee paid by iphone-customers...Apple on the other side might object to being the only GSM-manufacturer that has to pay a monthly fee.Yes , it would really suck if the only hardware provider to charge monthly fees to the hardware they provide had to pay royalties on said monthly fees .
They are clearly being persecuted for their uniqueness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what we've heard Apple demands not only a one-time sales price from the operators (as most other mobile manufacturers do) but also a part of the monthly fee paid by iphone-customers...Apple on the other side might object to being the only GSM-manufacturer that has to pay a monthly fee.Yes, it would really suck if the only hardware provider to charge monthly fees to the hardware they provide had to pay royalties on said monthly fees.
They are clearly being persecuted for their uniqueness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31490028</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Fjandr</author>
	<datestamp>1268659320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then Apple should build their own engine or buy someone else's. If you have actual technology for sale that is covered by a valid patent, you should be able to choose to whom you sell and for what price. You should be able to negotiate deals with anyone who wants to buy it, including negotiating for access to other things you might want. A patent provides legally protected leverage in an industry for a limited (theoretically) time, and just like freedom to associate or not with whom you choose, you should be able to sell or not based on whatever arbitrary criteria you want to set. There are all sorts of instances when companies set different rates based on who is buying and what sort of negotiating power each party has.</p><p>That this is an item protected under patent should make absolutely no difference.</p><p>Hell, that should be one of the benefits of patents: being able to control, in any manner you desire, the sale of your idea for a limited time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then Apple should build their own engine or buy someone else 's .
If you have actual technology for sale that is covered by a valid patent , you should be able to choose to whom you sell and for what price .
You should be able to negotiate deals with anyone who wants to buy it , including negotiating for access to other things you might want .
A patent provides legally protected leverage in an industry for a limited ( theoretically ) time , and just like freedom to associate or not with whom you choose , you should be able to sell or not based on whatever arbitrary criteria you want to set .
There are all sorts of instances when companies set different rates based on who is buying and what sort of negotiating power each party has.That this is an item protected under patent should make absolutely no difference.Hell , that should be one of the benefits of patents : being able to control , in any manner you desire , the sale of your idea for a limited time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then Apple should build their own engine or buy someone else's.
If you have actual technology for sale that is covered by a valid patent, you should be able to choose to whom you sell and for what price.
You should be able to negotiate deals with anyone who wants to buy it, including negotiating for access to other things you might want.
A patent provides legally protected leverage in an industry for a limited (theoretically) time, and just like freedom to associate or not with whom you choose, you should be able to sell or not based on whatever arbitrary criteria you want to set.
There are all sorts of instances when companies set different rates based on who is buying and what sort of negotiating power each party has.That this is an item protected under patent should make absolutely no difference.Hell, that should be one of the benefits of patents: being able to control, in any manner you desire, the sale of your idea for a limited time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486914</id>
	<title>criteria for software and patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the invention isn't something that could one day be plausibly taught in computer science classes which are academically oriented (as opposed to training for a specific platform, language, application suite, etc.), at either the undergraduate or graduate level, then it shouldn't be patentable.  A similar test could be devised for hardware patents.</p><p>It's that simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the invention is n't something that could one day be plausibly taught in computer science classes which are academically oriented ( as opposed to training for a specific platform , language , application suite , etc .
) , at either the undergraduate or graduate level , then it should n't be patentable .
A similar test could be devised for hardware patents.It 's that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the invention isn't something that could one day be plausibly taught in computer science classes which are academically oriented (as opposed to training for a specific platform, language, application suite, etc.
), at either the undergraduate or graduate level, then it shouldn't be patentable.
A similar test could be devised for hardware patents.It's that simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31494488</id>
	<title>Re:Alchemy?</title>
	<author>broeman</author>
	<datestamp>1268750280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"unbelievable price" = even more expensive that you would ever have dreamed of!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" unbelievable price " = even more expensive that you would ever have dreamed of !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"unbelievable price" = even more expensive that you would ever have dreamed of!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31492616</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1268772240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm afraid all this mess is way more complicated than merely Nokia's obligation to offer the patents to GSM Association Members under RAND terms.</p><p>We're not sure that Apple ever had the rights to RAND terms administered by the GSM Association.  Nokia's RAND obligations are a contract with the GSM Association, not Apple.  We don't know why Apple has avoided joining the association.  Apple might be fucked if the association favors existing members like Motorola and HTC.  We've also gleaned that Nokia's initial offer was quite close to the pure RAND terms, but the price went up when Apple played hard ball.</p><p>We are sure that Apple has knowingly violated the GSM patents without obtaining licenses.  We should therefore expect that Nokia will win significant punitive damages based upon Apple's ongoing violations, as RAND would have no bearing upon past infringement.  We're obviously unsure however how much gets covered by the hardware maker's license, also whether Apple's went though manufacturer that had the licenses (Chinese manufacturer, hello?).</p><p>I'm personally curious what role the GSM Association plays in enforcing the RAND obligations imposed upon members.  Is association membership a contract between all the members pairwise, like a treaty, or a contract between each member and the association?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm afraid all this mess is way more complicated than merely Nokia 's obligation to offer the patents to GSM Association Members under RAND terms.We 're not sure that Apple ever had the rights to RAND terms administered by the GSM Association .
Nokia 's RAND obligations are a contract with the GSM Association , not Apple .
We do n't know why Apple has avoided joining the association .
Apple might be fucked if the association favors existing members like Motorola and HTC .
We 've also gleaned that Nokia 's initial offer was quite close to the pure RAND terms , but the price went up when Apple played hard ball.We are sure that Apple has knowingly violated the GSM patents without obtaining licenses .
We should therefore expect that Nokia will win significant punitive damages based upon Apple 's ongoing violations , as RAND would have no bearing upon past infringement .
We 're obviously unsure however how much gets covered by the hardware maker 's license , also whether Apple 's went though manufacturer that had the licenses ( Chinese manufacturer , hello ?
) .I 'm personally curious what role the GSM Association plays in enforcing the RAND obligations imposed upon members .
Is association membership a contract between all the members pairwise , like a treaty , or a contract between each member and the association ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm afraid all this mess is way more complicated than merely Nokia's obligation to offer the patents to GSM Association Members under RAND terms.We're not sure that Apple ever had the rights to RAND terms administered by the GSM Association.
Nokia's RAND obligations are a contract with the GSM Association, not Apple.
We don't know why Apple has avoided joining the association.
Apple might be fucked if the association favors existing members like Motorola and HTC.
We've also gleaned that Nokia's initial offer was quite close to the pure RAND terms, but the price went up when Apple played hard ball.We are sure that Apple has knowingly violated the GSM patents without obtaining licenses.
We should therefore expect that Nokia will win significant punitive damages based upon Apple's ongoing violations, as RAND would have no bearing upon past infringement.
We're obviously unsure however how much gets covered by the hardware maker's license, also whether Apple's went though manufacturer that had the licenses (Chinese manufacturer, hello?
).I'm personally curious what role the GSM Association plays in enforcing the RAND obligations imposed upon members.
Is association membership a contract between all the members pairwise, like a treaty, or a contract between each member and the association?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487078</id>
	<title>1984 ad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember when Apple resembled the androgynous athlete more than the creepy old Big Brother dude on the TV? I do...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when Apple resembled the androgynous athlete more than the creepy old Big Brother dude on the TV ?
I do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when Apple resembled the androgynous athlete more than the creepy old Big Brother dude on the TV?
I do...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488862</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268652480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>R&amp;D is an expensive, time consuming process that leads to many dead ends</p></div><p>Corporations seek to avoid expense.  They don't engage in research if there is any other choice.  They leach.  Universities and government labs are the main hosts, and that's ok, that's one of the purposes of those organizations.  But the leeches shouldn't be given exclusive rights to the work of others.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That's why patents exist... To give companies an incentive to do non-trivial innovation...</p></div><p>Yes, in an ideal world.  In reality, the system works poorly, and even against the goal.  Instead of more innovation, we get less competition, less diversity, and less innovation as companies use the system to hurt and eliminate one another, and reduce consumers' choices.  Then there's patent trolls and the likes of SCO, the suicide bombers of the War on Innovation.  One possible outcome of this fight is that Apple and Nokia both lose, and only the trial lawyers win.  We need disarmament to stop this sort of destructive competition.  Get rid of the patents.  It's like trying to win a sports contest by assassinating the competition before the contest, and winning by forfeit when the competition doesn't show up.  Turn this war back into a sport.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>R&amp;D is an expensive , time consuming process that leads to many dead endsCorporations seek to avoid expense .
They do n't engage in research if there is any other choice .
They leach .
Universities and government labs are the main hosts , and that 's ok , that 's one of the purposes of those organizations .
But the leeches should n't be given exclusive rights to the work of others.That 's why patents exist... To give companies an incentive to do non-trivial innovation...Yes , in an ideal world .
In reality , the system works poorly , and even against the goal .
Instead of more innovation , we get less competition , less diversity , and less innovation as companies use the system to hurt and eliminate one another , and reduce consumers ' choices .
Then there 's patent trolls and the likes of SCO , the suicide bombers of the War on Innovation .
One possible outcome of this fight is that Apple and Nokia both lose , and only the trial lawyers win .
We need disarmament to stop this sort of destructive competition .
Get rid of the patents .
It 's like trying to win a sports contest by assassinating the competition before the contest , and winning by forfeit when the competition does n't show up .
Turn this war back into a sport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>R&amp;D is an expensive, time consuming process that leads to many dead endsCorporations seek to avoid expense.
They don't engage in research if there is any other choice.
They leach.
Universities and government labs are the main hosts, and that's ok, that's one of the purposes of those organizations.
But the leeches shouldn't be given exclusive rights to the work of others.That's why patents exist... To give companies an incentive to do non-trivial innovation...Yes, in an ideal world.
In reality, the system works poorly, and even against the goal.
Instead of more innovation, we get less competition, less diversity, and less innovation as companies use the system to hurt and eliminate one another, and reduce consumers' choices.
Then there's patent trolls and the likes of SCO, the suicide bombers of the War on Innovation.
One possible outcome of this fight is that Apple and Nokia both lose, and only the trial lawyers win.
We need disarmament to stop this sort of destructive competition.
Get rid of the patents.
It's like trying to win a sports contest by assassinating the competition before the contest, and winning by forfeit when the competition doesn't show up.
Turn this war back into a sport.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31494926</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Jefferson quote :</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268751960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really think this quote is as appropriate as you might think. A quick search revealed it was written in 1813. You know what also happened in those year ? Industrial revolution. remember where it kinda started ?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really think this quote is as appropriate as you might think .
A quick search revealed it was written in 1813 .
You know what also happened in those year ?
Industrial revolution .
remember where it kinda started ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really think this quote is as appropriate as you might think.
A quick search revealed it was written in 1813.
You know what also happened in those year ?
Industrial revolution.
remember where it kinda started ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487776</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>diamondsw</author>
	<datestamp>1268647740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it does. As part of a standard, Nokia is bound to license these patents on fair and non-discriminatory terms. If it turns out they were charging exorbitant fees to Apple as opposed to other manufacturers, it would be illegal and they would face sanctions (from who and in what form, I'm unsure).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it does .
As part of a standard , Nokia is bound to license these patents on fair and non-discriminatory terms .
If it turns out they were charging exorbitant fees to Apple as opposed to other manufacturers , it would be illegal and they would face sanctions ( from who and in what form , I 'm unsure ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it does.
As part of a standard, Nokia is bound to license these patents on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
If it turns out they were charging exorbitant fees to Apple as opposed to other manufacturers, it would be illegal and they would face sanctions (from who and in what form, I'm unsure).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486844</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268643960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents, but real technology patents. The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.</p></div><p>Would you care to explain how Nokia's patents are not software patents when they are implemented by software? Care to explain how Nokia has a right to now claim that all of Apple's product line is infringing when Apple has "licensed" WiFi from the standards group? How can Nokia make claims against a company that has legally licensed Wifi technology?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents , but real technology patents .
The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is , with no real " valuable " intellectual property.Would you care to explain how Nokia 's patents are not software patents when they are implemented by software ?
Care to explain how Nokia has a right to now claim that all of Apple 's product line is infringing when Apple has " licensed " WiFi from the standards group ?
How can Nokia make claims against a company that has legally licensed Wifi technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents, but real technology patents.
The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.Would you care to explain how Nokia's patents are not software patents when they are implemented by software?
Care to explain how Nokia has a right to now claim that all of Apple's product line is infringing when Apple has "licensed" WiFi from the standards group?
How can Nokia make claims against a company that has legally licensed Wifi technology?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31505406</id>
	<title>Re:RAND - *IF* you developed it...</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1268769120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but the issue seems far more complex :</p><p>(1) Nokia says their first offer placed GSM essential patents under FRAND terms, proposing additional cross licensing only for non-essential patents.</p><p>(2) Who enforces Apple's access to FRAND terms?  I'd imagine the FRAND obligations are spelled out in contracts between Nokia and 3GPP.</p><p>(3) Apple has now been violating these patents for several years now.  It's doubtful that FRAND terms apply to past infringement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the issue seems far more complex : ( 1 ) Nokia says their first offer placed GSM essential patents under FRAND terms , proposing additional cross licensing only for non-essential patents .
( 2 ) Who enforces Apple 's access to FRAND terms ?
I 'd imagine the FRAND obligations are spelled out in contracts between Nokia and 3GPP .
( 3 ) Apple has now been violating these patents for several years now .
It 's doubtful that FRAND terms apply to past infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but the issue seems far more complex :(1) Nokia says their first offer placed GSM essential patents under FRAND terms, proposing additional cross licensing only for non-essential patents.
(2) Who enforces Apple's access to FRAND terms?
I'd imagine the FRAND obligations are spelled out in contracts between Nokia and 3GPP.
(3) Apple has now been violating these patents for several years now.
It's doubtful that FRAND terms apply to past infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487432</id>
	<title>Not Alchemy</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1268646240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Magic. Cause Apple dose not employ alchemists. They have <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/190171/ipad\_magic\_wont\_hurt\_netbooks.html" title="pcworld.com">Wizards.</a> [pcworld.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Magic .
Cause Apple dose not employ alchemists .
They have Wizards .
[ pcworld.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Magic.
Cause Apple dose not employ alchemists.
They have Wizards.
[pcworld.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489460</id>
	<title>Proposal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268656200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I herewith propose the use of the expression "legal alchemy" to describe the creative usage of ones own patents, but with more effort put into legal than technical creativity.</p><p>Not to be confused with the Patent Troll, which refers to maliciuos use of aquired patents with no creativity at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I herewith propose the use of the expression " legal alchemy " to describe the creative usage of ones own patents , but with more effort put into legal than technical creativity.Not to be confused with the Patent Troll , which refers to maliciuos use of aquired patents with no creativity at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I herewith propose the use of the expression "legal alchemy" to describe the creative usage of ones own patents, but with more effort put into legal than technical creativity.Not to be confused with the Patent Troll, which refers to maliciuos use of aquired patents with no creativity at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487004</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1268644560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure, for those specific innovations.  But R&amp;D is an expensive, time consuming process that leads to many dead ends and few profitable results (if done in the Bell Atlantic method).  So they do need to capitalize on the relatively few innovations that are profitable to pave the way for the vast number that are directly profitable (Consider that Bell invented basically DLP way back in the 1970's.  Sure, it's a good innovation, but it never paid them profits, because it didn't become economically feasible for decades later).<br> <br>
I think personally software patents are stupid, because the barrier to entry into such a field are so small that it's very hard to realistically say "I'm the first one to ever come up with this idea" and prove it (After all, it could have been part of some student's senior research project in the 70's, but was never "published")...  With technologies with a large barrier to entry (especially large barriers to research), patents offer some protection to companies that they can recoup their research costs.  Consider the example of someone building computer algorithms for file system interaction.  How many man-hours does it take to do that?  Sure, there could be a fair number, but probably not man-decades... How many non-human resources are involved?  Sure, you do have a few computers/servers/etc, but my guess is MAYBE $10k...  Now, consider research into radio protocols for cellphone data.  How many man-hours are involved there?  Potentially many decades (if you have more 2 or 3 working for any significant amount of time).  How many non-human resources?  LOTS.  FCC licenses, transmitting equipment, diagnostic equipment, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions of dollars).  All dedicated (for that particular time at least) to the research.  <b>That's</b> why patents exist...  To give companies an incentive to do non-trivial innovation...  The fact of the mater is (IMHO) for a large number of the software patents that I've seen, the innovation is trivial at best (If not already common knowledge)...  <br> <br>
Just my $0.02...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphonesSure , for those specific innovations .
But R&amp;D is an expensive , time consuming process that leads to many dead ends and few profitable results ( if done in the Bell Atlantic method ) .
So they do need to capitalize on the relatively few innovations that are profitable to pave the way for the vast number that are directly profitable ( Consider that Bell invented basically DLP way back in the 1970 's .
Sure , it 's a good innovation , but it never paid them profits , because it did n't become economically feasible for decades later ) .
I think personally software patents are stupid , because the barrier to entry into such a field are so small that it 's very hard to realistically say " I 'm the first one to ever come up with this idea " and prove it ( After all , it could have been part of some student 's senior research project in the 70 's , but was never " published " ) ... With technologies with a large barrier to entry ( especially large barriers to research ) , patents offer some protection to companies that they can recoup their research costs .
Consider the example of someone building computer algorithms for file system interaction .
How many man-hours does it take to do that ?
Sure , there could be a fair number , but probably not man-decades... How many non-human resources are involved ?
Sure , you do have a few computers/servers/etc , but my guess is MAYBE $ 10k... Now , consider research into radio protocols for cellphone data .
How many man-hours are involved there ?
Potentially many decades ( if you have more 2 or 3 working for any significant amount of time ) .
How many non-human resources ?
LOTS. FCC licenses , transmitting equipment , diagnostic equipment , potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars ( if not millions of dollars ) .
All dedicated ( for that particular time at least ) to the research .
That 's why patents exist... To give companies an incentive to do non-trivial innovation... The fact of the mater is ( IMHO ) for a large number of the software patents that I 've seen , the innovation is trivial at best ( If not already common knowledge ) .. . Just my $ 0.02.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphonesSure, for those specific innovations.
But R&amp;D is an expensive, time consuming process that leads to many dead ends and few profitable results (if done in the Bell Atlantic method).
So they do need to capitalize on the relatively few innovations that are profitable to pave the way for the vast number that are directly profitable (Consider that Bell invented basically DLP way back in the 1970's.
Sure, it's a good innovation, but it never paid them profits, because it didn't become economically feasible for decades later).
I think personally software patents are stupid, because the barrier to entry into such a field are so small that it's very hard to realistically say "I'm the first one to ever come up with this idea" and prove it (After all, it could have been part of some student's senior research project in the 70's, but was never "published")...  With technologies with a large barrier to entry (especially large barriers to research), patents offer some protection to companies that they can recoup their research costs.
Consider the example of someone building computer algorithms for file system interaction.
How many man-hours does it take to do that?
Sure, there could be a fair number, but probably not man-decades... How many non-human resources are involved?
Sure, you do have a few computers/servers/etc, but my guess is MAYBE $10k...  Now, consider research into radio protocols for cellphone data.
How many man-hours are involved there?
Potentially many decades (if you have more 2 or 3 working for any significant amount of time).
How many non-human resources?
LOTS.  FCC licenses, transmitting equipment, diagnostic equipment, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions of dollars).
All dedicated (for that particular time at least) to the research.
That's why patents exist...  To give companies an incentive to do non-trivial innovation...  The fact of the mater is (IMHO) for a large number of the software patents that I've seen, the innovation is trivial at best (If not already common knowledge)...   
Just my $0.02...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489150</id>
	<title>Re:[citation needed]</title>
	<author>mvdwege</author>
	<datestamp>1268654160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For at least W-CDMA related patents, grandparent is right. The only way you get RAND terms is by applying to become a member of the consortium and put up your own patents for the common pool.</p><p>
Mart</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For at least W-CDMA related patents , grandparent is right .
The only way you get RAND terms is by applying to become a member of the consortium and put up your own patents for the common pool .
Mart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For at least W-CDMA related patents, grandparent is right.
The only way you get RAND terms is by applying to become a member of the consortium and put up your own patents for the common pool.
Mart</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488194</id>
	<title>Re:Alchemy?</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1268649180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Legal Alchemy?  iPad Magic?</p><p>Is this Cupertino we're talking about or Hogwarts?</p></div><p>Seriously.  I think Apple's marketing team must all be out on vacation because the image on <a href="http://www.apple.com/" title="apple.com">Apple's homepage</a> [apple.com] had the worst tagline I've ever seen:<br> <br>

"A magical and revolutionary product at an unbelievable price."<br> <br>

That's unbelievably bad.  I thought Apple was a lot classier than that garbage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Legal Alchemy ?
iPad Magic ? Is this Cupertino we 're talking about or Hogwarts ? Seriously .
I think Apple 's marketing team must all be out on vacation because the image on Apple 's homepage [ apple.com ] had the worst tagline I 've ever seen : " A magical and revolutionary product at an unbelievable price .
" That 's unbelievably bad .
I thought Apple was a lot classier than that garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legal Alchemy?
iPad Magic?Is this Cupertino we're talking about or Hogwarts?Seriously.
I think Apple's marketing team must all be out on vacation because the image on Apple's homepage [apple.com] had the worst tagline I've ever seen: 

"A magical and revolutionary product at an unbelievable price.
" 

That's unbelievably bad.
I thought Apple was a lot classier than that garbage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489032</id>
	<title>Legal alchemy?</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1268653500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia's case just continues to get more ridiculous. This is the kind of thing you say when you have nothing to say.</p><p>What Nokia is doing is like if Intel declared that NVIDIA can't use USB wihoit turning over a free license for all NVIDIA GPU's to Intel. There's no excuse for it. Whatever RIM pays Nokia for 3G is what Apple should pay, no more, no less.</p><p>Of course there will be Slashdot posters who feel that all Apple IP should be liberated for use by the whole industry rather than the industry having to design their own gear. Nokia is calling that tune and you will dance to it. After all, why should there be any competition in tech, right? If Apple spent the last 15 years building next-generation software and Nokia spent the same time making feature phones, why shouldn't Nokia be able to just take what they need from Apple in order to catch up in the smartphone era? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia 's case just continues to get more ridiculous .
This is the kind of thing you say when you have nothing to say.What Nokia is doing is like if Intel declared that NVIDIA ca n't use USB wihoit turning over a free license for all NVIDIA GPU 's to Intel .
There 's no excuse for it .
Whatever RIM pays Nokia for 3G is what Apple should pay , no more , no less.Of course there will be Slashdot posters who feel that all Apple IP should be liberated for use by the whole industry rather than the industry having to design their own gear .
Nokia is calling that tune and you will dance to it .
After all , why should there be any competition in tech , right ?
If Apple spent the last 15 years building next-generation software and Nokia spent the same time making feature phones , why should n't Nokia be able to just take what they need from Apple in order to catch up in the smartphone era ?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia's case just continues to get more ridiculous.
This is the kind of thing you say when you have nothing to say.What Nokia is doing is like if Intel declared that NVIDIA can't use USB wihoit turning over a free license for all NVIDIA GPU's to Intel.
There's no excuse for it.
Whatever RIM pays Nokia for 3G is what Apple should pay, no more, no less.Of course there will be Slashdot posters who feel that all Apple IP should be liberated for use by the whole industry rather than the industry having to design their own gear.
Nokia is calling that tune and you will dance to it.
After all, why should there be any competition in tech, right?
If Apple spent the last 15 years building next-generation software and Nokia spent the same time making feature phones, why shouldn't Nokia be able to just take what they need from Apple in order to catch up in the smartphone era?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31531936</id>
	<title>Legal Alchemy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268924520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple can create "Legal Alchemy" that must mean Nokia is a witch!</p><p>I say burn the witches!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple can create " Legal Alchemy " that must mean Nokia is a witch ! I say burn the witches !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple can create "Legal Alchemy" that must mean Nokia is a witch!I say burn the witches!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31493090</id>
	<title>it's all well and good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268736240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people keep bringing up apple's complaint of nokia charging higher license fees to them<br>the thing is though the other companies that are paying the license fees<br>the larger names in the game actually contribute their r&amp;d back for everyone to benefit<br>companies like toshiba, sony/ericsson, motorola, nec, ti, etc<br>they continue their r&amp;d into wireless communications for everyone to benefit<br>then there are vanilla phone designers that are paying the higher license fee</p><p>why? because they don't do r&amp;d.</p><p>now lets take a look back at apple<br>they want the benefits of a wireless r&amp;d company, without actually doing the r&amp;d<br>so if apple got the rate they want, wouldn't the terms be unreasonable?</p><p>i'm not saying apple are bad here<br>if they didn't try to get the most benefit for the least cost their shareholders would bail<br>i'm just saying there's two sides to every story</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people keep bringing up apple 's complaint of nokia charging higher license fees to themthe thing is though the other companies that are paying the license feesthe larger names in the game actually contribute their r&amp;d back for everyone to benefitcompanies like toshiba , sony/ericsson , motorola , nec , ti , etcthey continue their r&amp;d into wireless communications for everyone to benefitthen there are vanilla phone designers that are paying the higher license feewhy ?
because they do n't do r&amp;d.now lets take a look back at applethey want the benefits of a wireless r&amp;d company , without actually doing the r&amp;dso if apple got the rate they want , would n't the terms be unreasonable ? i 'm not saying apple are bad hereif they did n't try to get the most benefit for the least cost their shareholders would baili 'm just saying there 's two sides to every story</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people keep bringing up apple's complaint of nokia charging higher license fees to themthe thing is though the other companies that are paying the license feesthe larger names in the game actually contribute their r&amp;d back for everyone to benefitcompanies like toshiba, sony/ericsson, motorola, nec, ti, etcthey continue their r&amp;d into wireless communications for everyone to benefitthen there are vanilla phone designers that are paying the higher license feewhy?
because they don't do r&amp;d.now lets take a look back at applethey want the benefits of a wireless r&amp;d company, without actually doing the r&amp;dso if apple got the rate they want, wouldn't the terms be unreasonable?i'm not saying apple are bad hereif they didn't try to get the most benefit for the least cost their shareholders would baili'm just saying there's two sides to every story</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31523452</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1268930220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think personally software patents are stupid</p></div><p>nokia's patents are technology patents<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... apple is counter sueing with their software patents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think personally software patents are stupidnokia 's patents are technology patents ... apple is counter sueing with their software patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think personally software patents are stupidnokia's patents are technology patents ... apple is counter sueing with their software patents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487208</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>kylant</author>
	<datestamp>1268645460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you ever considered that both sides of the story might be true?<p>

Apple has a rather unusual model to sell its phone: From what we've heard Apple demands not only a one-time sales price from the operators (as most other mobile manufacturers do) but also a part of the monthly fee paid by iphone-customers. If Nokia licenses its patents for a percentage of the sales price (a common practice) they could also have asked for a percentage of the monthly fee (and justly so, if you ask me, as Apple just spreads out the sales price over a longer period of time). Apple on the other side might object to being the only GSM-manufacturer that has to pay a monthly fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever considered that both sides of the story might be true ?
Apple has a rather unusual model to sell its phone : From what we 've heard Apple demands not only a one-time sales price from the operators ( as most other mobile manufacturers do ) but also a part of the monthly fee paid by iphone-customers .
If Nokia licenses its patents for a percentage of the sales price ( a common practice ) they could also have asked for a percentage of the monthly fee ( and justly so , if you ask me , as Apple just spreads out the sales price over a longer period of time ) .
Apple on the other side might object to being the only GSM-manufacturer that has to pay a monthly fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever considered that both sides of the story might be true?
Apple has a rather unusual model to sell its phone: From what we've heard Apple demands not only a one-time sales price from the operators (as most other mobile manufacturers do) but also a part of the monthly fee paid by iphone-customers.
If Nokia licenses its patents for a percentage of the sales price (a common practice) they could also have asked for a percentage of the monthly fee (and justly so, if you ask me, as Apple just spreads out the sales price over a longer period of time).
Apple on the other side might object to being the only GSM-manufacturer that has to pay a monthly fee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488062</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268648700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Except that whether or not they've made their money back is entirely irrelevant to anything</p><p>Patent monopolies are a privilege, not some intrinsic right.  If their purpose is to allow innovators to recoup their R&amp;D investment - one of the many lies trotted out by the antihuman psychopaths who support patent monopolies - then patents <i>should</i> terminate when that investment is recouped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Except that whether or not they 've made their money back is entirely irrelevant to anythingPatent monopolies are a privilege , not some intrinsic right .
If their purpose is to allow innovators to recoup their R&amp;D investment - one of the many lies trotted out by the antihuman psychopaths who support patent monopolies - then patents should terminate when that investment is recouped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Except that whether or not they've made their money back is entirely irrelevant to anythingPatent monopolies are a privilege, not some intrinsic right.
If their purpose is to allow innovators to recoup their R&amp;D investment - one of the many lies trotted out by the antihuman psychopaths who support patent monopolies - then patents should terminate when that investment is recouped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486908</id>
	<title>documenting it on http://en.swpat.org</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1268644200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
  Here's what I've gathered so far about these:
</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Nokia\_v.\_Apple\_(2010,\_USA)" title="swpat.org">Nokia v. Apple (2010, USA)</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Apple\_v.\_HTC\_(2010,\_USA)" title="swpat.org">Apple v. HTC (2010, USA)</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Nokia" title="swpat.org">Nokia</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Apple\_Inc." title="swpat.org">Apple Inc.</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent\_non-aggression\_pacts" title="swpat.org">Patent non-aggression pacts</a> [swpat.org] (including the Sun-Microsoft 2004 deal)</li></ul><p>
  swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what I 've gathered so far about these : Nokia v. Apple ( 2010 , USA ) [ swpat.org ] Apple v. HTC ( 2010 , USA ) [ swpat.org ] Nokia [ swpat.org ] Apple Inc. [ swpat.org ] Patent non-aggression pacts [ swpat.org ] ( including the Sun-Microsoft 2004 deal ) swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki , help welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Here's what I've gathered so far about these:

 Nokia v. Apple (2010, USA) [swpat.org]  Apple v. HTC (2010, USA) [swpat.org]  Nokia [swpat.org]  Apple Inc. [swpat.org]  Patent non-aggression pacts [swpat.org] (including the Sun-Microsoft 2004 deal)
  swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487270</id>
	<title>#AWESOME fp?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Taken over by BSDI may disturb Other dis^tributions</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taken over by BSDI may disturb Other dis ^ tributions [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taken over by BSDI may disturb Other dis^tributions [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489480</id>
	<title>Re:RAND - *IF* you developed it...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268656260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You linked to the general definition of RAND. There's nothing in the definition that precludes some form of "limited RAND", where the terms are only applied to a members of a specific group, and not outside of it.</p><p>In any case, every time this Nokia vs Apple topic is raised on Slashdot, I see this very same exchange about RAND. However, neither the side that claims GSM is RAND-licensed to everyone, nor the side which claims some kind of "limited RAND", have offered any definite sources. I've tried to find it on GSM Association website on my own, but wasn't successful.</p><p>Until then, both yours and GP's claims are just speculation, and the actual licensing terms for GSM specs, and how they apply to this situation, are unclear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You linked to the general definition of RAND .
There 's nothing in the definition that precludes some form of " limited RAND " , where the terms are only applied to a members of a specific group , and not outside of it.In any case , every time this Nokia vs Apple topic is raised on Slashdot , I see this very same exchange about RAND .
However , neither the side that claims GSM is RAND-licensed to everyone , nor the side which claims some kind of " limited RAND " , have offered any definite sources .
I 've tried to find it on GSM Association website on my own , but was n't successful.Until then , both yours and GP 's claims are just speculation , and the actual licensing terms for GSM specs , and how they apply to this situation , are unclear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You linked to the general definition of RAND.
There's nothing in the definition that precludes some form of "limited RAND", where the terms are only applied to a members of a specific group, and not outside of it.In any case, every time this Nokia vs Apple topic is raised on Slashdot, I see this very same exchange about RAND.
However, neither the side that claims GSM is RAND-licensed to everyone, nor the side which claims some kind of "limited RAND", have offered any definite sources.
I've tried to find it on GSM Association website on my own, but wasn't successful.Until then, both yours and GP's claims are just speculation, and the actual licensing terms for GSM specs, and how they apply to this situation, are unclear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487720</id>
	<title>Economic feasibility</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1268647440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lawyers are happy, and everyone is paying lots of money. At this rate, at some future point it will hopefully become unaffordable to litigate over software patents, and all companies who do so will go the way of SCO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lawyers are happy , and everyone is paying lots of money .
At this rate , at some future point it will hopefully become unaffordable to litigate over software patents , and all companies who do so will go the way of SCO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lawyers are happy, and everyone is paying lots of money.
At this rate, at some future point it will hopefully become unaffordable to litigate over software patents, and all companies who do so will go the way of SCO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487860</id>
	<title>Re:RAND - *IF* you developed it...</title>
	<author>diamondsw</author>
	<datestamp>1268648040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>RAND terms only applied IF you developed and contributed to the standard.</p></div><p>Um, wrong much?</p><p>From everyone's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable\_and\_Non\_Discriminatory\_Licensing" title="wikipedia.org">favorite source</a> [wikipedia.org]:<br>"companies agree that if they receive any patents on technologies which become essential to the standard then they agree to allow other groups attempting to implement the standard to use those patents and they agree that the charges for those patents shall be reasonable"</p><p>There is absolutely nothing involved in being part of the standards body to <b>receive</b> RAND terms. If you're part of the standards body you have to <b>extend</b> RAND terms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RAND terms only applied IF you developed and contributed to the standard.Um , wrong much ? From everyone 's favorite source [ wikipedia.org ] : " companies agree that if they receive any patents on technologies which become essential to the standard then they agree to allow other groups attempting to implement the standard to use those patents and they agree that the charges for those patents shall be reasonable " There is absolutely nothing involved in being part of the standards body to receive RAND terms .
If you 're part of the standards body you have to extend RAND terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RAND terms only applied IF you developed and contributed to the standard.Um, wrong much?From everyone's favorite source [wikipedia.org]:"companies agree that if they receive any patents on technologies which become essential to the standard then they agree to allow other groups attempting to implement the standard to use those patents and they agree that the charges for those patents shall be reasonable"There is absolutely nothing involved in being part of the standards body to receive RAND terms.
If you're part of the standards body you have to extend RAND terms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487996</id>
	<title>Re:Not Alchemy</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1268648460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>no, the <a href="http://www.htc.com/www/product/magic/overview.html" title="htc.com">Magic</a> [htc.com] is made by HTC, not Apple</htmltext>
<tokenext>no , the Magic [ htc.com ] is made by HTC , not Apple</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, the Magic [htc.com] is made by HTC, not Apple</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487550</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268646720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Another problem here is it says that when Apple counter sued for the 13 patents, they also admitted they are violating Nokia's patents because they didn't want to pay the royalty rates and cross-patent usage. Just because Apple didn't want to pay the rates and patent usages doesn't give them the legal right to use and profit from Nokia's work for free.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, Apple didn't want to agree to Nokia's non-licensing of the patents. Apple is willing to pay, but Nokia doesn't want RAND license fees like everyone else wants to pay. Instead, Nokia wants Apple <strong>to pay more</strong> than everyone else. Apple wants to pay, Nokia doesn't want to accept the terms that Apple is paying under.</p><p>Apple knows of the patents - they have to pay as part of standard agreements, which is why they're all licensed under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) principles. So they're willing to pay Nokia the same fees that every other cellphone maker pays them. Nokia, though, sees potential in what Apple is doing, and demands that they pay more simply because Apple has something Nokia wants, and Apple has no choice but to pay Nokia anyways.</p><p>In a car analogy, Nokia is selling engines for cars. Everyone who wants to build a car has to buy a Nokia engine, and they all pay $5,000 for it. Since Nokia is the only company that can sell engines, they agreed to sell anyone who makes cars an engine for $5,000 (RAND). Apple comes along, builds the iCar, and wants to buy the Nokia engine. Nokia sees that the iCar has a nifty dashboard widget, and wants that for their cars. So Nokia charges Apple not just $5,000, but $5,000 plus the dashboard widget.</p><p>In this case, no one has clean hands nor is completely innocent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another problem here is it says that when Apple counter sued for the 13 patents , they also admitted they are violating Nokia 's patents because they did n't want to pay the royalty rates and cross-patent usage .
Just because Apple did n't want to pay the rates and patent usages does n't give them the legal right to use and profit from Nokia 's work for free.Actually , Apple did n't want to agree to Nokia 's non-licensing of the patents .
Apple is willing to pay , but Nokia does n't want RAND license fees like everyone else wants to pay .
Instead , Nokia wants Apple to pay more than everyone else .
Apple wants to pay , Nokia does n't want to accept the terms that Apple is paying under.Apple knows of the patents - they have to pay as part of standard agreements , which is why they 're all licensed under RAND ( reasonable and non-discriminatory ) principles .
So they 're willing to pay Nokia the same fees that every other cellphone maker pays them .
Nokia , though , sees potential in what Apple is doing , and demands that they pay more simply because Apple has something Nokia wants , and Apple has no choice but to pay Nokia anyways.In a car analogy , Nokia is selling engines for cars .
Everyone who wants to build a car has to buy a Nokia engine , and they all pay $ 5,000 for it .
Since Nokia is the only company that can sell engines , they agreed to sell anyone who makes cars an engine for $ 5,000 ( RAND ) .
Apple comes along , builds the iCar , and wants to buy the Nokia engine .
Nokia sees that the iCar has a nifty dashboard widget , and wants that for their cars .
So Nokia charges Apple not just $ 5,000 , but $ 5,000 plus the dashboard widget.In this case , no one has clean hands nor is completely innocent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another problem here is it says that when Apple counter sued for the 13 patents, they also admitted they are violating Nokia's patents because they didn't want to pay the royalty rates and cross-patent usage.
Just because Apple didn't want to pay the rates and patent usages doesn't give them the legal right to use and profit from Nokia's work for free.Actually, Apple didn't want to agree to Nokia's non-licensing of the patents.
Apple is willing to pay, but Nokia doesn't want RAND license fees like everyone else wants to pay.
Instead, Nokia wants Apple to pay more than everyone else.
Apple wants to pay, Nokia doesn't want to accept the terms that Apple is paying under.Apple knows of the patents - they have to pay as part of standard agreements, which is why they're all licensed under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) principles.
So they're willing to pay Nokia the same fees that every other cellphone maker pays them.
Nokia, though, sees potential in what Apple is doing, and demands that they pay more simply because Apple has something Nokia wants, and Apple has no choice but to pay Nokia anyways.In a car analogy, Nokia is selling engines for cars.
Everyone who wants to build a car has to buy a Nokia engine, and they all pay $5,000 for it.
Since Nokia is the only company that can sell engines, they agreed to sell anyone who makes cars an engine for $5,000 (RAND).
Apple comes along, builds the iCar, and wants to buy the Nokia engine.
Nokia sees that the iCar has a nifty dashboard widget, and wants that for their cars.
So Nokia charges Apple not just $5,000, but $5,000 plus the dashboard widget.In this case, no one has clean hands nor is completely innocent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486872</id>
	<title>Corporate Wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are much less exciting than REAL wars. When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are much less exciting than REAL wars .
When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are much less exciting than REAL wars.
When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31494800</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268751480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
In the US, the constitutional purpose of patents is to promote progress in the useful arts.  In order to do that, patents have to not only allow somebody to recoup R&amp;D costs, but also to make a profit beyond that.  After all, if it's not profitable to invent, not as many people and companies will invent, and that doesn't promote progress.  How much of a profit opportunity, and how selective the terms, are debatable, but the principle is sound Constitutional law here in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , the constitutional purpose of patents is to promote progress in the useful arts .
In order to do that , patents have to not only allow somebody to recoup R&amp;D costs , but also to make a profit beyond that .
After all , if it 's not profitable to invent , not as many people and companies will invent , and that does n't promote progress .
How much of a profit opportunity , and how selective the terms , are debatable , but the principle is sound Constitutional law here in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In the US, the constitutional purpose of patents is to promote progress in the useful arts.
In order to do that, patents have to not only allow somebody to recoup R&amp;D costs, but also to make a profit beyond that.
After all, if it's not profitable to invent, not as many people and companies will invent, and that doesn't promote progress.
How much of a profit opportunity, and how selective the terms, are debatable, but the principle is sound Constitutional law here in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487180</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless it can be shown that Apple had access to these supposed "technological wonders" from Nokia, then it can't be theft. It was a clean-room implementation of similar features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless it can be shown that Apple had access to these supposed " technological wonders " from Nokia , then it ca n't be theft .
It was a clean-room implementation of similar features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless it can be shown that Apple had access to these supposed "technological wonders" from Nokia, then it can't be theft.
It was a clean-room implementation of similar features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487476</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268646360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That will be difficult - Apple buys its GSM chips off the shelf.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That will be difficult - Apple buys its GSM chips off the shelf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That will be difficult - Apple buys its GSM chips off the shelf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31492366</id>
	<title>Re:RAND - *IF* you developed it...</title>
	<author>Zxern</author>
	<datestamp>1268680260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice editing to bad you missed a key part.<br>

<br>"<b> <i>The normal case is that when joining the standardization body</i> </b>, companies agree that if they receive any patents on technologies which become essential to the standard then they agree to allow other groups attempting to implement the standard to use those patents and they agree that the charges for those patents shall be reasonable. RAND licenses allow a competitive market to develop between multiple companies making products which implement a standard."<br>

<br>You must be a part of the standardization body to get the full benefits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice editing to bad you missed a key part .
" The normal case is that when joining the standardization body , companies agree that if they receive any patents on technologies which become essential to the standard then they agree to allow other groups attempting to implement the standard to use those patents and they agree that the charges for those patents shall be reasonable .
RAND licenses allow a competitive market to develop between multiple companies making products which implement a standard .
" You must be a part of the standardization body to get the full benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice editing to bad you missed a key part.
" The normal case is that when joining the standardization body , companies agree that if they receive any patents on technologies which become essential to the standard then they agree to allow other groups attempting to implement the standard to use those patents and they agree that the charges for those patents shall be reasonable.
RAND licenses allow a competitive market to develop between multiple companies making products which implement a standard.
"

You must be a part of the standardization body to get the full benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487962</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1268648340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think Apple has actually invented much of the hardware in the iPhone? of course not, it's off the shelf parts. So why is Apple the target? it sounds like to me this is a software patent argument. The people supplying the chips to Apple are the people infringing.</p><p>Nokia may have a case if and when Apple produce their own cell silicon, the radio part of the phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think Apple has actually invented much of the hardware in the iPhone ?
of course not , it 's off the shelf parts .
So why is Apple the target ?
it sounds like to me this is a software patent argument .
The people supplying the chips to Apple are the people infringing.Nokia may have a case if and when Apple produce their own cell silicon , the radio part of the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think Apple has actually invented much of the hardware in the iPhone?
of course not, it's off the shelf parts.
So why is Apple the target?
it sounds like to me this is a software patent argument.
The people supplying the chips to Apple are the people infringing.Nokia may have a case if and when Apple produce their own cell silicon, the radio part of the phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487908</id>
	<title>Same Story, Different Name</title>
	<author>Surasanji</author>
	<datestamp>1268648220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple, Microsoft and every other company in the business seems to do this pretty often. Did Apple sue Microsoft on the Window's GUI way back when- something they both stole from Xerox?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple , Microsoft and every other company in the business seems to do this pretty often .
Did Apple sue Microsoft on the Window 's GUI way back when- something they both stole from Xerox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple, Microsoft and every other company in the business seems to do this pretty often.
Did Apple sue Microsoft on the Window's GUI way back when- something they both stole from Xerox?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31492668</id>
	<title>Why can't we all just be friends....?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268730060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EOM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EOM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EOM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489380</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>Idbar</author>
	<datestamp>1268655600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, what you say makes a lot of sense. Another cellphone from AT&amp;T will cost a hell lot of money. Apple is selling their handsets for a lot less than other manufacturers, perhaps because they are NOT paying their respective royalties?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , what you say makes a lot of sense .
Another cellphone from AT&amp;T will cost a hell lot of money .
Apple is selling their handsets for a lot less than other manufacturers , perhaps because they are NOT paying their respective royalties ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, what you say makes a lot of sense.
Another cellphone from AT&amp;T will cost a hell lot of money.
Apple is selling their handsets for a lot less than other manufacturers, perhaps because they are NOT paying their respective royalties?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487622</id>
	<title>[citation needed]</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268647080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That goes counter to how I've always understood the whole point if RAND to be. If you're correct, then no company that ever wanted to use a GSM chip, but was unable to have participated in the creation of the standard due to, oh, I don't know, <b>not having existed at the time</b> or some other equally lame reason would be effectively excluded from being able to make use of this <b>standard</b> in any practical way. <br> <br>
I suspect you're thinking of more normal cross-licensing agreements. Because that's what you've described. If not...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. <br>
Dan Aris</htmltext>
<tokenext>That goes counter to how I 've always understood the whole point if RAND to be .
If you 're correct , then no company that ever wanted to use a GSM chip , but was unable to have participated in the creation of the standard due to , oh , I do n't know , not having existed at the time or some other equally lame reason would be effectively excluded from being able to make use of this standard in any practical way .
I suspect you 're thinking of more normal cross-licensing agreements .
Because that 's what you 've described .
If not...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof .
Dan Aris</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That goes counter to how I've always understood the whole point if RAND to be.
If you're correct, then no company that ever wanted to use a GSM chip, but was unable to have participated in the creation of the standard due to, oh, I don't know, not having existed at the time or some other equally lame reason would be effectively excluded from being able to make use of this standard in any practical way.
I suspect you're thinking of more normal cross-licensing agreements.
Because that's what you've described.
If not...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Dan Aris</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487794</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1268647740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that Apple doesn't hold any multitouch patents.  They *license* them from Synaptics</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Apple does n't hold any multitouch patents .
They * license * them from Synaptics</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Apple doesn't hold any multitouch patents.
They *license* them from Synaptics</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487152</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents.  Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.</p></div><p>Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents, but real technology patents. The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.</p></div><p>Another problem here is it says that when Apple counter sued for the 13 patents, they also admitted they are violating Nokia's patents because they didn't want to pay the royalty rates and cross-patent usage. Just because Apple didn't want to pay the rates and patent usages doesn't give them the legal right to use and profit from Nokia's work for free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents .
Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents , but real technology patents .
The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is , with no real " valuable " intellectual property.Another problem here is it says that when Apple counter sued for the 13 patents , they also admitted they are violating Nokia 's patents because they did n't want to pay the royalty rates and cross-patent usage .
Just because Apple did n't want to pay the rates and patent usages does n't give them the legal right to use and profit from Nokia 's work for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents.
Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents, but real technology patents.
The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.Another problem here is it says that when Apple counter sued for the 13 patents, they also admitted they are violating Nokia's patents because they didn't want to pay the royalty rates and cross-patent usage.
Just because Apple didn't want to pay the rates and patent usages doesn't give them the legal right to use and profit from Nokia's work for free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489096</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>firewood</author>
	<datestamp>1268653920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones, so it doesn't make sense to pay anything to Nokia.</i> <p>If only 1\% of the patents in a companies portfolio pay off, the a company would need to take in over 100X profit from each valuable patent, on average, just break even on patentable research.  But no smart gambler/executive would make the bet on investing in any R&amp;D for just break-even odds.  It's only a smart bet if you are looking to take in a payoff is well over the inverse odds.  "many times over", for small N, might not even be in the ballpark of enough for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones , so it does n't make sense to pay anything to Nokia .
If only 1 \ % of the patents in a companies portfolio pay off , the a company would need to take in over 100X profit from each valuable patent , on average , just break even on patentable research .
But no smart gambler/executive would make the bet on investing in any R&amp;D for just break-even odds .
It 's only a smart bet if you are looking to take in a payoff is well over the inverse odds .
" many times over " , for small N , might not even be in the ballpark of enough for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones, so it doesn't make sense to pay anything to Nokia.
If only 1\% of the patents in a companies portfolio pay off, the a company would need to take in over 100X profit from each valuable patent, on average, just break even on patentable research.
But no smart gambler/executive would make the bet on investing in any R&amp;D for just break-even odds.
It's only a smart bet if you are looking to take in a payoff is well over the inverse odds.
"many times over", for small N, might not even be in the ballpark of enough for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487738</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>chowdahhead</author>
	<datestamp>1268647560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nokia offered to license the patents to Apple on a per-patent fee or one fee for the whole portfolio; the amounts of those fees have not been disclosed.  Apple rejected this offer.  I can't find any information about cross-licensing in the Delaware complaint.  Without more information, we can't be certain if Nokia is being unreasonable or not, but Apple can't just refuse to license Nokia's IP because they don't like the terms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia offered to license the patents to Apple on a per-patent fee or one fee for the whole portfolio ; the amounts of those fees have not been disclosed .
Apple rejected this offer .
I ca n't find any information about cross-licensing in the Delaware complaint .
Without more information , we ca n't be certain if Nokia is being unreasonable or not , but Apple ca n't just refuse to license Nokia 's IP because they do n't like the terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia offered to license the patents to Apple on a per-patent fee or one fee for the whole portfolio; the amounts of those fees have not been disclosed.
Apple rejected this offer.
I can't find any information about cross-licensing in the Delaware complaint.
Without more information, we can't be certain if Nokia is being unreasonable or not, but Apple can't just refuse to license Nokia's IP because they don't like the terms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487228</id>
	<title>Link to the full motion to dismiss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Digital Daily's posted Nokia's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100315/nokia-appl-follo/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital Daily 's posted Nokia 's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety : http : //digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100315/nokia-appl-follo/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital Daily's posted Nokia's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100315/nokia-appl-follo/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486974</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.</i>
</p><p>Apple holds plenty of hardware patents, like the multi-touch feature of the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is , with no real " valuable " intellectual property .
Apple holds plenty of hardware patents , like the multi-touch feature of the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.
Apple holds plenty of hardware patents, like the multi-touch feature of the iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31523790</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1268931960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if it was a simple as asking for a larger check from apple, nokia wouldn't have a leg to stand on and we wouldn't be hearing about this. the issue is the valuation of apple's patents and x-licensing. apple thinks the patents they license to nokia are worth more, and therefore, they should pay less to nokia for nokia's patents.</p><p>nokia owns p1. apple needs to license p1. apple offers their p2+p3 for p1. nokia asks for p2+p3+$1000 for p1. how much exactly are p2+p3 worth? that's the issue. one thing for sure, they aren't worth whatever apple says their are worth. it's in apple's best interest to overvalue their own patents. nokia's patent on the other hand has a set price and is licensed for that same set price from many, many other companies already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if it was a simple as asking for a larger check from apple , nokia would n't have a leg to stand on and we would n't be hearing about this .
the issue is the valuation of apple 's patents and x-licensing .
apple thinks the patents they license to nokia are worth more , and therefore , they should pay less to nokia for nokia 's patents.nokia owns p1 .
apple needs to license p1 .
apple offers their p2 + p3 for p1 .
nokia asks for p2 + p3 + $ 1000 for p1 .
how much exactly are p2 + p3 worth ?
that 's the issue .
one thing for sure , they are n't worth whatever apple says their are worth .
it 's in apple 's best interest to overvalue their own patents .
nokia 's patent on the other hand has a set price and is licensed for that same set price from many , many other companies already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it was a simple as asking for a larger check from apple, nokia wouldn't have a leg to stand on and we wouldn't be hearing about this.
the issue is the valuation of apple's patents and x-licensing.
apple thinks the patents they license to nokia are worth more, and therefore, they should pay less to nokia for nokia's patents.nokia owns p1.
apple needs to license p1.
apple offers their p2+p3 for p1.
nokia asks for p2+p3+$1000 for p1.
how much exactly are p2+p3 worth?
that's the issue.
one thing for sure, they aren't worth whatever apple says their are worth.
it's in apple's best interest to overvalue their own patents.
nokia's patent on the other hand has a set price and is licensed for that same set price from many, many other companies already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486806</id>
	<title>Steve Jobs says:</title>
	<author>arcite</author>
	<datestamp>1268643840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I put on my robe and wizard hat...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I put on my robe and wizard hat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I put on my robe and wizard hat...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31490644</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1268662980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the bit where the other companies (the ones that Nokia charges the RAND rate to) have contributed back to the general body of patents that cover 3G cellular connections. They helped reduce the time, and therefore cost, of R&amp;D, which helped Nokia bring new products to market sooner.</p><p>Apple, which does basically jack shit research of any type, let alone in phone technology, decides they want to use 3G tech, but expects to pay only as much as the companies who (through their own work) helped bring that tech to market. IANAL, but as far as I know they have no legal reason to expect this; Nokia can charge them whatever it feels like.</p><p>If Apple didn't like Nokia's behavior and thought they had a case in court, they could have sued Nokia for the "right" to pay the same price as another company, regardless of any differences in the value those companies have to Nokia. They might even have won that case. However, to start selling product that is using the patented technology, knowing full well it is patented, and lacking a license to use those patents... well, you don't need to have a degree in law to recognize that as illegal. *Maybe* Nokia will be forced to let Apple license their tech at the same price as LG, but Apple will still owe Nokia an awful lot of money for all those illegally sold iPhones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the bit where the other companies ( the ones that Nokia charges the RAND rate to ) have contributed back to the general body of patents that cover 3G cellular connections .
They helped reduce the time , and therefore cost , of R&amp;D , which helped Nokia bring new products to market sooner.Apple , which does basically jack shit research of any type , let alone in phone technology , decides they want to use 3G tech , but expects to pay only as much as the companies who ( through their own work ) helped bring that tech to market .
IANAL , but as far as I know they have no legal reason to expect this ; Nokia can charge them whatever it feels like.If Apple did n't like Nokia 's behavior and thought they had a case in court , they could have sued Nokia for the " right " to pay the same price as another company , regardless of any differences in the value those companies have to Nokia .
They might even have won that case .
However , to start selling product that is using the patented technology , knowing full well it is patented , and lacking a license to use those patents... well , you do n't need to have a degree in law to recognize that as illegal .
* Maybe * Nokia will be forced to let Apple license their tech at the same price as LG , but Apple will still owe Nokia an awful lot of money for all those illegally sold iPhones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the bit where the other companies (the ones that Nokia charges the RAND rate to) have contributed back to the general body of patents that cover 3G cellular connections.
They helped reduce the time, and therefore cost, of R&amp;D, which helped Nokia bring new products to market sooner.Apple, which does basically jack shit research of any type, let alone in phone technology, decides they want to use 3G tech, but expects to pay only as much as the companies who (through their own work) helped bring that tech to market.
IANAL, but as far as I know they have no legal reason to expect this; Nokia can charge them whatever it feels like.If Apple didn't like Nokia's behavior and thought they had a case in court, they could have sued Nokia for the "right" to pay the same price as another company, regardless of any differences in the value those companies have to Nokia.
They might even have won that case.
However, to start selling product that is using the patented technology, knowing full well it is patented, and lacking a license to use those patents... well, you don't need to have a degree in law to recognize that as illegal.
*Maybe* Nokia will be forced to let Apple license their tech at the same price as LG, but Apple will still owe Nokia an awful lot of money for all those illegally sold iPhones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488162</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>X.25</author>
	<datestamp>1268649060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now, someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this, but...</i></p><p><i>My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia. They are part of the GSM specification, which no GSM phone can function without. Because they are part of the standard, they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.</i></p><p><i>But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.</i></p><p><i>What, exactly? I don't know. Either the articles I've read didn't say, or I've since forgotten. I think it was cross-licensing with some of the specific patents on the iPhone, but as I say, I'm not sure.</i></p><p><i>Either way, if Nokia isn't licensing the original patents under RAND terms to Apple, then they should be burned to hell and back for this. They knew the price when they put patents of theirs into the GSM spec, and now they have to live with it.</i></p><p>So, let me see if I got this right:</p><p>You don't know WHAT Nokia wanted from Apple, but you KNOW that Nokia didn't license the original patents under RAND terms?</p><p>I am sorry - could you try to explain this to me again? You know that Nokia wouldn't give Apple the patents under RAND terms, but you don't know what Nokia was asking for?</p><p>I am at the point where I am annoyed more by Apple appologists than by biggest Microsoft fans.</p><p>And that is really really hard to achieve...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this , but...My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia .
They are part of the GSM specification , which no GSM phone can function without .
Because they are part of the standard , they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.What , exactly ?
I do n't know .
Either the articles I 've read did n't say , or I 've since forgotten .
I think it was cross-licensing with some of the specific patents on the iPhone , but as I say , I 'm not sure.Either way , if Nokia is n't licensing the original patents under RAND terms to Apple , then they should be burned to hell and back for this .
They knew the price when they put patents of theirs into the GSM spec , and now they have to live with it.So , let me see if I got this right : You do n't know WHAT Nokia wanted from Apple , but you KNOW that Nokia did n't license the original patents under RAND terms ? I am sorry - could you try to explain this to me again ?
You know that Nokia would n't give Apple the patents under RAND terms , but you do n't know what Nokia was asking for ? I am at the point where I am annoyed more by Apple appologists than by biggest Microsoft fans.And that is really really hard to achieve.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this, but...My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia.
They are part of the GSM specification, which no GSM phone can function without.
Because they are part of the standard, they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.What, exactly?
I don't know.
Either the articles I've read didn't say, or I've since forgotten.
I think it was cross-licensing with some of the specific patents on the iPhone, but as I say, I'm not sure.Either way, if Nokia isn't licensing the original patents under RAND terms to Apple, then they should be burned to hell and back for this.
They knew the price when they put patents of theirs into the GSM spec, and now they have to live with it.So, let me see if I got this right:You don't know WHAT Nokia wanted from Apple, but you KNOW that Nokia didn't license the original patents under RAND terms?I am sorry - could you try to explain this to me again?
You know that Nokia wouldn't give Apple the patents under RAND terms, but you don't know what Nokia was asking for?I am at the point where I am annoyed more by Apple appologists than by biggest Microsoft fans.And that is really really hard to achieve...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489132</id>
	<title>Stop modding parent up, he is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268654100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple acquired lots of touch control related patents when they acquired Fingerworks several years ago.</p><p>Please shut up when you don't know what you are talking about instead of spouting off like you actually know something about the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple acquired lots of touch control related patents when they acquired Fingerworks several years ago.Please shut up when you do n't know what you are talking about instead of spouting off like you actually know something about the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple acquired lots of touch control related patents when they acquired Fingerworks several years ago.Please shut up when you don't know what you are talking about instead of spouting off like you actually know something about the subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489532</id>
	<title>So the downfall begins</title>
	<author>cenobyte40k</author>
	<datestamp>1268656500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so the downfall really begins. When as a company you realize that the only way you are going to survive is to sue those that compete with you out of business, you are on the way out. If like the Music Business, Hollywood and now Apple, you have a huge amounts of money and a large eager fan base you might pull it out for awhile, but unless you 'think different' you are on the way out.

I think MS might be on the same ride, the major difference between MS and the others is the number of profitable areas it has (Consumer electronics, Office software, operating systems, business systems, consumer application market, gaming, etc, etc). unlike the others that are very highly focused. Apple only makes consumer electronics an some software to support it, Hollywood and the Music industry only make the one product each (expect the parent companies to make it though as they are mostly more like MS)  This might allow MS to survive the death of one or more core market areas in the long run (Like Sony could survive the loss of BMG).</htmltext>
<tokenext>so the downfall really begins .
When as a company you realize that the only way you are going to survive is to sue those that compete with you out of business , you are on the way out .
If like the Music Business , Hollywood and now Apple , you have a huge amounts of money and a large eager fan base you might pull it out for awhile , but unless you 'think different ' you are on the way out .
I think MS might be on the same ride , the major difference between MS and the others is the number of profitable areas it has ( Consumer electronics , Office software , operating systems , business systems , consumer application market , gaming , etc , etc ) .
unlike the others that are very highly focused .
Apple only makes consumer electronics an some software to support it , Hollywood and the Music industry only make the one product each ( expect the parent companies to make it though as they are mostly more like MS ) This might allow MS to survive the death of one or more core market areas in the long run ( Like Sony could survive the loss of BMG ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so the downfall really begins.
When as a company you realize that the only way you are going to survive is to sue those that compete with you out of business, you are on the way out.
If like the Music Business, Hollywood and now Apple, you have a huge amounts of money and a large eager fan base you might pull it out for awhile, but unless you 'think different' you are on the way out.
I think MS might be on the same ride, the major difference between MS and the others is the number of profitable areas it has (Consumer electronics, Office software, operating systems, business systems, consumer application market, gaming, etc, etc).
unlike the others that are very highly focused.
Apple only makes consumer electronics an some software to support it, Hollywood and the Music industry only make the one product each (expect the parent companies to make it though as they are mostly more like MS)  This might allow MS to survive the death of one or more core market areas in the long run (Like Sony could survive the loss of BMG).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489244</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268654700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I've heard people that think US$30 is too much for a DVD, so they download it and "use it" for free. You "want" to pay a fair price, but you don't get it. <br> <br>
Maybe if Apple wins, we have an excuse to torrent movies!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 've heard people that think US $ 30 is too much for a DVD , so they download it and " use it " for free .
You " want " to pay a fair price , but you do n't get it .
Maybe if Apple wins , we have an excuse to torrent movies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I've heard people that think US$30 is too much for a DVD, so they download it and "use it" for free.
You "want" to pay a fair price, but you don't get it.
Maybe if Apple wins, we have an excuse to torrent movies!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489704</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Jefferson quote :</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268657340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet he changed his mind and ran the patent office for a time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet he changed his mind and ran the patent office for a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet he changed his mind and ran the patent office for a time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487092</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones, so it doesn't make sense to pay anything to Nokia."
<br> <br>
Except that whether or not they've made their money back is entirely irrelevant to anything.  It's Nokia's patented technology, and if someone wants to use it, they have to pay up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones , so it does n't make sense to pay anything to Nokia .
" Except that whether or not they 've made their money back is entirely irrelevant to anything .
It 's Nokia 's patented technology , and if someone wants to use it , they have to pay up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones, so it doesn't make sense to pay anything to Nokia.
"
 
Except that whether or not they've made their money back is entirely irrelevant to anything.
It's Nokia's patented technology, and if someone wants to use it, they have to pay up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487600</id>
	<title>Re:Alchemy?</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1268646900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe Nokia should get a three-headed dog to guard their patents...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Nokia should get a three-headed dog to guard their patents.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Nokia should get a three-headed dog to guard their patents...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489812</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268658060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this, but...</p><p>My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia.  They are part of the GSM specification, which no GSM phone can function without.  Because they are part of the standard, they <b>must</b> be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.</p><p>But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.</p></div><p>Apple was unhappy with the price that Nokia set for licensing.  They claimed that other companies paid less... which is true when talking strictly in terms of dollars.  Nokia licenses GSM patents to Motorola for a small fee AND cross-licensing rights on Motorola patents.  Apple wants to pay the same fee as Motorola but without any cross-licensing.</p><p>Even if Apple offered some patents, they have NO HARDWARE patents.  Nokia, being primarily a hardware company, does not place much value on Apple's software patents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this , but...My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia .
They are part of the GSM specification , which no GSM phone can function without .
Because they are part of the standard , they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.Apple was unhappy with the price that Nokia set for licensing .
They claimed that other companies paid less... which is true when talking strictly in terms of dollars .
Nokia licenses GSM patents to Motorola for a small fee AND cross-licensing rights on Motorola patents .
Apple wants to pay the same fee as Motorola but without any cross-licensing.Even if Apple offered some patents , they have NO HARDWARE patents .
Nokia , being primarily a hardware company , does not place much value on Apple 's software patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this, but...My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia.
They are part of the GSM specification, which no GSM phone can function without.
Because they are part of the standard, they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.Apple was unhappy with the price that Nokia set for licensing.
They claimed that other companies paid less... which is true when talking strictly in terms of dollars.
Nokia licenses GSM patents to Motorola for a small fee AND cross-licensing rights on Motorola patents.
Apple wants to pay the same fee as Motorola but without any cross-licensing.Even if Apple offered some patents, they have NO HARDWARE patents.
Nokia, being primarily a hardware company, does not place much value on Apple's software patents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522</id>
	<title>I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents.  Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents .
Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents.
Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487436</id>
	<title>Re:RAND - *IF* you developed it...</title>
	<author>GuyFawkes</author>
	<datestamp>1268646240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RAND terms only applied IF you developed and contributed to the standard.</p><p>RAND terms SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED everyone who came along afterwards and wanted to use / licence GSM.</p><p>Apple DID NOT help develop GSM.</p><p>Apple REFUSED to accept non-RAND GSM licencing terms.</p><p>These are the facts. These are ALL the facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RAND terms only applied IF you developed and contributed to the standard.RAND terms SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED everyone who came along afterwards and wanted to use / licence GSM.Apple DID NOT help develop GSM.Apple REFUSED to accept non-RAND GSM licencing terms.These are the facts .
These are ALL the facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RAND terms only applied IF you developed and contributed to the standard.RAND terms SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED everyone who came along afterwards and wanted to use / licence GSM.Apple DID NOT help develop GSM.Apple REFUSED to accept non-RAND GSM licencing terms.These are the facts.
These are ALL the facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31490286</id>
	<title>Re:Corporate Wars</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1268660700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They are much less exciting than REAL wars. When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision?</p></div></blockquote><p>

But the shiny plastic white iArmour of the Fanboy Guard was far too easy to spot in the dark and the black turtlenecks stood out in the snow making them perfect targets for Nokia. Not to mention that they could only get iAmmo from one iStore and their iRifles could only shoot one bullet at a time. The war was over before it began with the Finns doing to Apple what they did to the Soviets back in the 30's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are much less exciting than REAL wars .
When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision ?
But the shiny plastic white iArmour of the Fanboy Guard was far too easy to spot in the dark and the black turtlenecks stood out in the snow making them perfect targets for Nokia .
Not to mention that they could only get iAmmo from one iStore and their iRifles could only shoot one bullet at a time .
The war was over before it began with the Finns doing to Apple what they did to the Soviets back in the 30 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are much less exciting than REAL wars.
When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision?
But the shiny plastic white iArmour of the Fanboy Guard was far too easy to spot in the dark and the black turtlenecks stood out in the snow making them perfect targets for Nokia.
Not to mention that they could only get iAmmo from one iStore and their iRifles could only shoot one bullet at a time.
The war was over before it began with the Finns doing to Apple what they did to the Soviets back in the 30's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487512</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>Dtyst</author>
	<datestamp>1268646540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How I heard the story:
When Apple announced the iphone, Nokia started negotiations with Apple and asked them to pay the same patent fee as everyone else in cell phone business. Apple did not want to pay. One year after the release of IPhone Apple still didn't agree to pay. As Nokia noticed some of Apples UI multi-touch patents were quite good, Nokia said ok, give us right to use your patents instead. Apple said no. Nokia sued Apple as they have been using Nokia patented technologies for years and haven't paid Nokia a dime. Now Apple is trying to twist story that Nokia is just after their patents. That is a lie. Nokia offered Apple same as everyone else from the start.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How I heard the story : When Apple announced the iphone , Nokia started negotiations with Apple and asked them to pay the same patent fee as everyone else in cell phone business .
Apple did not want to pay .
One year after the release of IPhone Apple still did n't agree to pay .
As Nokia noticed some of Apples UI multi-touch patents were quite good , Nokia said ok , give us right to use your patents instead .
Apple said no .
Nokia sued Apple as they have been using Nokia patented technologies for years and have n't paid Nokia a dime .
Now Apple is trying to twist story that Nokia is just after their patents .
That is a lie .
Nokia offered Apple same as everyone else from the start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How I heard the story:
When Apple announced the iphone, Nokia started negotiations with Apple and asked them to pay the same patent fee as everyone else in cell phone business.
Apple did not want to pay.
One year after the release of IPhone Apple still didn't agree to pay.
As Nokia noticed some of Apples UI multi-touch patents were quite good, Nokia said ok, give us right to use your patents instead.
Apple said no.
Nokia sued Apple as they have been using Nokia patented technologies for years and haven't paid Nokia a dime.
Now Apple is trying to twist story that Nokia is just after their patents.
That is a lie.
Nokia offered Apple same as everyone else from the start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487202</id>
	<title>Isn't licence pricing usually kept quiet?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1268645400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.</p></div><p>Really? So, exactly how much did Nokia want from Apple?</p><p>And exactly how much did the other licensees pay?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.Really ?
So , exactly how much did Nokia want from Apple ? And exactly how much did the other licensees pay ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.Really?
So, exactly how much did Nokia want from Apple?And exactly how much did the other licensees pay?
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</id>
	<title>RAND</title>
	<author>danaris</author>
	<datestamp>1268644200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this, but...</p><p>My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia.  They are part of the GSM specification, which no GSM phone can function without.  Because they are part of the standard, they <b>must</b> be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.</p><p>But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.</p><p>What, exactly?  I don't know.  Either the articles I've read didn't say, or I've since forgotten.  I think it was cross-licensing with some of the specific patents on the iPhone, but as I say, I'm not sure.</p><p>Either way, if Nokia isn't licensing the original patents under RAND terms to Apple, then they should be burned to hell and back for this.  They knew the price when they put patents of theirs into the GSM spec, and now they have to live with it.</p><p>Dan Aris</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this , but...My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia .
They are part of the GSM specification , which no GSM phone can function without .
Because they are part of the standard , they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.What , exactly ?
I do n't know .
Either the articles I 've read did n't say , or I 've since forgotten .
I think it was cross-licensing with some of the specific patents on the iPhone , but as I say , I 'm not sure.Either way , if Nokia is n't licensing the original patents under RAND terms to Apple , then they should be burned to hell and back for this .
They knew the price when they put patents of theirs into the GSM spec , and now they have to live with it.Dan Aris</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this, but...My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia.
They are part of the GSM specification, which no GSM phone can function without.
Because they are part of the standard, they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.What, exactly?
I don't know.
Either the articles I've read didn't say, or I've since forgotten.
I think it was cross-licensing with some of the specific patents on the iPhone, but as I say, I'm not sure.Either way, if Nokia isn't licensing the original patents under RAND terms to Apple, then they should be burned to hell and back for this.
They knew the price when they put patents of theirs into the GSM spec, and now they have to live with it.Dan Aris</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487694</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1268647320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My understanding is that the cross-licensing agreements protects both companies from a patent war.  In this case, however, Apple didn't have a lot of cellphone technology to cross-license.  So Nokia wanted their non-cellphone tech.  Apple said no.   It would be interesting what Nokia charged some cellphone makers that don't bring a lot of innovation.  For example some of the Asian manufacturers that don't really invent new technology but figure out ways to make it cheaper.  What did Nokia charge them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that the cross-licensing agreements protects both companies from a patent war .
In this case , however , Apple did n't have a lot of cellphone technology to cross-license .
So Nokia wanted their non-cellphone tech .
Apple said no .
It would be interesting what Nokia charged some cellphone makers that do n't bring a lot of innovation .
For example some of the Asian manufacturers that do n't really invent new technology but figure out ways to make it cheaper .
What did Nokia charge them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that the cross-licensing agreements protects both companies from a patent war.
In this case, however, Apple didn't have a lot of cellphone technology to cross-license.
So Nokia wanted their non-cellphone tech.
Apple said no.
It would be interesting what Nokia charged some cellphone makers that don't bring a lot of innovation.
For example some of the Asian manufacturers that don't really invent new technology but figure out ways to make it cheaper.
What did Nokia charge them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486724</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones, so it doesn't make sense to pay anything to Nokia. If you read "Against Intellectual Monopoly" it's clear that patents are not needed for innovation, and actually slow it down. Of course, Apple is also wrong to sue companies, but I'm not sure if it's for defense in the case of HTC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones , so it does n't make sense to pay anything to Nokia .
If you read " Against Intellectual Monopoly " it 's clear that patents are not needed for innovation , and actually slow it down .
Of course , Apple is also wrong to sue companies , but I 'm not sure if it 's for defense in the case of HTC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has already paid off its research costs many times over from the sale of cellphones, so it doesn't make sense to pay anything to Nokia.
If you read "Against Intellectual Monopoly" it's clear that patents are not needed for innovation, and actually slow it down.
Of course, Apple is also wrong to sue companies, but I'm not sure if it's for defense in the case of HTC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31493650</id>
	<title>Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268744220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you care to explain how you might implement a GSM (or wifi, for that matter) radio transmitter and receiver, in only software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you care to explain how you might implement a GSM ( or wifi , for that matter ) radio transmitter and receiver , in only software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you care to explain how you might implement a GSM (or wifi, for that matter) radio transmitter and receiver, in only software?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488410</id>
	<title>Re:RAND</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1268650200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say all that is true (because I have no reason to believe you are wrong). If Nokia refused to make a reasonable deal with Apple &ndash; one that would violate anti-trust laws &ndash; shouldn't Apple have sued Nokia at that point, rather than build a device they knew required licensing to use that they didn't have? Is this "it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission"?</p><p>If Apple had built something and just failed to identify patents because they didn't research some obscure patents, I could understand. But it's obvious from the background that Apple did know and simply chose to violate the patents with the presumption they would fight that battle later &ndash; and win. I can almost see accounts/lawyers weighing that if they put the iPhone on the market and it tanks, then Nokia won't bother to sue. If the iPhone succeeds, then it will pay for its own court costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say all that is true ( because I have no reason to believe you are wrong ) .
If Nokia refused to make a reasonable deal with Apple    one that would violate anti-trust laws    should n't Apple have sued Nokia at that point , rather than build a device they knew required licensing to use that they did n't have ?
Is this " it 's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission " ? If Apple had built something and just failed to identify patents because they did n't research some obscure patents , I could understand .
But it 's obvious from the background that Apple did know and simply chose to violate the patents with the presumption they would fight that battle later    and win .
I can almost see accounts/lawyers weighing that if they put the iPhone on the market and it tanks , then Nokia wo n't bother to sue .
If the iPhone succeeds , then it will pay for its own court costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say all that is true (because I have no reason to believe you are wrong).
If Nokia refused to make a reasonable deal with Apple – one that would violate anti-trust laws – shouldn't Apple have sued Nokia at that point, rather than build a device they knew required licensing to use that they didn't have?
Is this "it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission"?If Apple had built something and just failed to identify patents because they didn't research some obscure patents, I could understand.
But it's obvious from the background that Apple did know and simply chose to violate the patents with the presumption they would fight that battle later – and win.
I can almost see accounts/lawyers weighing that if they put the iPhone on the market and it tanks, then Nokia won't bother to sue.
If the iPhone succeeds, then it will pay for its own court costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487806</id>
	<title>Re:Alchemy?</title>
	<author>$RANDOMLUSER</author>
	<datestamp>1268647800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Certainly not. This is Steve Jobs we're talking about. They <i>meant</i> to say "transubstantiation".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly not .
This is Steve Jobs we 're talking about .
They meant to say " transubstantiation " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly not.
This is Steve Jobs we're talking about.
They meant to say "transubstantiation".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489066</id>
	<title>Buy chips and Pay licencing?</title>
	<author>acomj</author>
	<datestamp>1268653740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple is buying off the shelf chips for its GSM transmitter, those come with a hidden "Tax" to actually use the chips?  Why aren't the chip makers paying the royalty to Nokia if it really has patents on what those chips do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple is buying off the shelf chips for its GSM transmitter , those come with a hidden " Tax " to actually use the chips ?
Why are n't the chip makers paying the royalty to Nokia if it really has patents on what those chips do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple is buying off the shelf chips for its GSM transmitter, those come with a hidden "Tax" to actually use the chips?
Why aren't the chip makers paying the royalty to Nokia if it really has patents on what those chips do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31492066</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Jefferson quote :</title>
	<author>mr\_matticus</author>
	<datestamp>1268675760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>he basically says patents are bullshit.</p></div><p>No, he doesn't.  He says the idea of "natural property" is bullshit, because it is, and people who consider patents a natural right when <em>real property</em> is a social construct are overstating their case.</p><p>"But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance."</p><p>In fact, he specifically says that if such a system is society's will, then it is entirely proper. "Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, <strong>without claim or complaint from anybody</strong>" (emphasis added)</p><p>This same Jefferson, of course, also said:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>an inventor ought to be allowed a right to the benefit of his invention for some certain time</p></div><p>He went on to <em>found</em> the Patent Office as Secretary of State and is one of the key figures in the development of patent requirements and practice, specifically because of his particular reservations.  Jefferson became a strong proponent of the US patent system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>he basically says patents are bullshit.No , he does n't .
He says the idea of " natural property " is bullshit , because it is , and people who consider patents a natural right when real property is a social construct are overstating their case .
" But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all , it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors .
It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject , that no individual has , of natural right , a separate property in an acre of land , for instance .
" In fact , he specifically says that if such a system is society 's will , then it is entirely proper .
" Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them , as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility , but this may or may not be done , according to the will and convenience of the society , without claim or complaint from anybody " ( emphasis added ) This same Jefferson , of course , also said : an inventor ought to be allowed a right to the benefit of his invention for some certain timeHe went on to found the Patent Office as Secretary of State and is one of the key figures in the development of patent requirements and practice , specifically because of his particular reservations .
Jefferson became a strong proponent of the US patent system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he basically says patents are bullshit.No, he doesn't.
He says the idea of "natural property" is bullshit, because it is, and people who consider patents a natural right when real property is a social construct are overstating their case.
"But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors.
It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance.
"In fact, he specifically says that if such a system is society's will, then it is entirely proper.
"Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody" (emphasis added)This same Jefferson, of course, also said:an inventor ought to be allowed a right to the benefit of his invention for some certain timeHe went on to found the Patent Office as Secretary of State and is one of the key figures in the development of patent requirements and practice, specifically because of his particular reservations.
Jefferson became a strong proponent of the US patent system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487670</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31490644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31523452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31492366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31492066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31523790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31492616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31505406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31494926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31494488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31493650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31494800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31490028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31498414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1854220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31490286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1854220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31490286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1854220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1854220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1854220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1854220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31494488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1854220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486724
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487092
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488062
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31494800
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487004
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487962
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488862
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31523452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487152
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487550
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489244
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31490028
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31490644
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487776
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486974
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487794
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486844
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31493650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1854220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31492066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31494926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1854220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1854220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31498414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487622
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487860
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31505406
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31489480
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31492366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31492616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31523790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31488410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31487694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1854220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1854220.31486806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
