<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_04_172212</id>
	<title>Palm Pre "iTunes Hack" Detailed By DVD Jon</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244136720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/natelanxon" rel="nofollow">CNETNate</a> writes <i>"As the reviews of the Palm Pre <a href="http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/0,39030107,49301745,00.htm">start to roll in</a>, DVD Jon expands on <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/05/29/1558241/Palm-Pre-To-Sync-Seamlessly-With-iTunes">previous coverage of the Pre</a> showing up in iTunes as some sort of an iPod, by <a href="http://nanocr.eu/2009/06/04/palm-pre-usb-hack-confirmed/">publishing the offending code Palm has used</a> to enabled the feature. As suspected, in regular USB mode, the phone addresses itself as a standard peripheral. But in 'Media Sync' mode, it claims to be an iPod ... from a vendor known as Apple."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNETNate writes " As the reviews of the Palm Pre start to roll in , DVD Jon expands on previous coverage of the Pre showing up in iTunes as some sort of an iPod , by publishing the offending code Palm has used to enabled the feature .
As suspected , in regular USB mode , the phone addresses itself as a standard peripheral .
But in 'Media Sync ' mode , it claims to be an iPod ... from a vendor known as Apple .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNETNate writes "As the reviews of the Palm Pre start to roll in, DVD Jon expands on previous coverage of the Pre showing up in iTunes as some sort of an iPod, by publishing the offending code Palm has used to enabled the feature.
As suspected, in regular USB mode, the phone addresses itself as a standard peripheral.
But in 'Media Sync' mode, it claims to be an iPod ... from a vendor known as Apple.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216135</id>
	<title>Re:Silly Apple, silly Palm</title>
	<author>ksheff</author>
	<datestamp>1244116080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do we know that this isn't being done with Apple's knowledge and support?  The assumption is that it is, but Palm could have paid Apple, gave them the right to use one of Palm's patents, or something else in order to allow the Pre to sync with iTunes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we know that this is n't being done with Apple 's knowledge and support ?
The assumption is that it is , but Palm could have paid Apple , gave them the right to use one of Palm 's patents , or something else in order to allow the Pre to sync with iTunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we know that this isn't being done with Apple's knowledge and support?
The assumption is that it is, but Palm could have paid Apple, gave them the right to use one of Palm's patents, or something else in order to allow the Pre to sync with iTunes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216803</id>
	<title>great marketing move Palm</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1244119920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yesterday felt like it was Apple's media blitz for WWDC and Iphone V3. There was so much news on iPhone v3 and bashing of the Pre.<p>
Palm obviously squashed that today (no Apple news on the interwebs) with this. Cause now, Apple either responds with a lawsuit or iTunes patch (looks evil) or spins it and says it's a benefit of iTunes (and since everyone thinks iTunes is bloat ware, looks like a monopoly, hence evil) and continues the Palm discussion, i.e. advertisement away from iPhone v3.</p><p>
Win-win for Palm.
</p><p> Now Apple can ignore all this and hit hard with the iPhone v3 specs, say tomorrow (same day as Palm's release) and it will take the steam outta Palm and set them up for a normal WWDC. Apple better do something now cause the Pre reviews have been a. totally bias-crap to pretty good, gorgeous screen device--easliy an iPhone contender.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yesterday felt like it was Apple 's media blitz for WWDC and Iphone V3 .
There was so much news on iPhone v3 and bashing of the Pre .
Palm obviously squashed that today ( no Apple news on the interwebs ) with this .
Cause now , Apple either responds with a lawsuit or iTunes patch ( looks evil ) or spins it and says it 's a benefit of iTunes ( and since everyone thinks iTunes is bloat ware , looks like a monopoly , hence evil ) and continues the Palm discussion , i.e .
advertisement away from iPhone v3 .
Win-win for Palm .
Now Apple can ignore all this and hit hard with the iPhone v3 specs , say tomorrow ( same day as Palm 's release ) and it will take the steam outta Palm and set them up for a normal WWDC .
Apple better do something now cause the Pre reviews have been a. totally bias-crap to pretty good , gorgeous screen device--easliy an iPhone contender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yesterday felt like it was Apple's media blitz for WWDC and Iphone V3.
There was so much news on iPhone v3 and bashing of the Pre.
Palm obviously squashed that today (no Apple news on the interwebs) with this.
Cause now, Apple either responds with a lawsuit or iTunes patch (looks evil) or spins it and says it's a benefit of iTunes (and since everyone thinks iTunes is bloat ware, looks like a monopoly, hence evil) and continues the Palm discussion, i.e.
advertisement away from iPhone v3.
Win-win for Palm.
Now Apple can ignore all this and hit hard with the iPhone v3 specs, say tomorrow (same day as Palm's release) and it will take the steam outta Palm and set them up for a normal WWDC.
Apple better do something now cause the Pre reviews have been a. totally bias-crap to pretty good, gorgeous screen device--easliy an iPhone contender.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212395</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244141940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They aren't pretending to be apple...  they're just answering a query with the expected response.</p><p>When you hardcode / lock your software to only work with one answer, then reverse engineering that answer, and emulating it is perfectly legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't pretending to be apple... they 're just answering a query with the expected response.When you hardcode / lock your software to only work with one answer , then reverse engineering that answer , and emulating it is perfectly legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't pretending to be apple...  they're just answering a query with the expected response.When you hardcode / lock your software to only work with one answer, then reverse engineering that answer, and emulating it is perfectly legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212073</id>
	<title>DMCA ???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244140620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>violating DMCA with a consumer product.....tsk...tsk. shows you how stupid the law is, though.<br>as for the pre<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>less megapixels than a samsung pixon. less intuitive than an iPhone. LAME.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>violating DMCA with a consumer product.....tsk...tsk .
shows you how stupid the law is , though.as for the pre ....less megapixels than a samsung pixon .
less intuitive than an iPhone .
LAME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>violating DMCA with a consumer product.....tsk...tsk.
shows you how stupid the law is, though.as for the pre ....less megapixels than a samsung pixon.
less intuitive than an iPhone.
LAME.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212269</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>uglyduckling</author>
	<datestamp>1244141400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, if you read the article you would see that "the root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre", therefore it appears that there are checks that could be put into the next version of iTunes to block this.  If Apple were a bit smarter, they would make iTunes available for 50 quid for non-iPod devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you read the article you would see that " the root USB node ( IOUSBDevice ) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre " , therefore it appears that there are checks that could be put into the next version of iTunes to block this .
If Apple were a bit smarter , they would make iTunes available for 50 quid for non-iPod devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you read the article you would see that "the root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre", therefore it appears that there are checks that could be put into the next version of iTunes to block this.
If Apple were a bit smarter, they would make iTunes available for 50 quid for non-iPod devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212349</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244141700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And Apple's computers pretend to be running "Windows NT 4.9 Server" over a Windows network. It's not exactly out-of-the-ordinary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And Apple 's computers pretend to be running " Windows NT 4.9 Server " over a Windows network .
It 's not exactly out-of-the-ordinary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Apple's computers pretend to be running "Windows NT 4.9 Server" over a Windows network.
It's not exactly out-of-the-ordinary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213327</id>
	<title>Re:Reverse Engineering?</title>
	<author>domatic</author>
	<datestamp>1244145720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One can always sniff the wires without getting inside binaries.  This is what Samba does.  And USB debuggers have existed for years.  Crypto on both ends can complicate this so one may have to resort to clean room at least enough to suss out how the crypto works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One can always sniff the wires without getting inside binaries .
This is what Samba does .
And USB debuggers have existed for years .
Crypto on both ends can complicate this so one may have to resort to clean room at least enough to suss out how the crypto works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can always sniff the wires without getting inside binaries.
This is what Samba does.
And USB debuggers have existed for years.
Crypto on both ends can complicate this so one may have to resort to clean room at least enough to suss out how the crypto works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212317</id>
	<title>Re:How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit?</title>
	<author>Chaos Incarnate</author>
	<datestamp>1244141580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They may be hit with a lawsuit, but if Palm did their job right, they'll escape scot-free same as Compaq did in the early '80s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They may be hit with a lawsuit , but if Palm did their job right , they 'll escape scot-free same as Compaq did in the early '80s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may be hit with a lawsuit, but if Palm did their job right, they'll escape scot-free same as Compaq did in the early '80s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213001</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>djdavetrouble</author>
	<datestamp>1244144460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple locks out all devices except "genuine" Apple devices, doesn't that leave them open for antitrust / anti competitive lawsuits?<br>IA definitely Not AL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple locks out all devices except " genuine " Apple devices , does n't that leave them open for antitrust / anti competitive lawsuits ? IA definitely Not AL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple locks out all devices except "genuine" Apple devices, doesn't that leave them open for antitrust / anti competitive lawsuits?IA definitely Not AL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212339</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Xtifr</author>
	<datestamp>1244141700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was an earlier case involving game carts and embedded trademarked identifiers where it was ruled that another company was allowed to use a particular trademark embedded in ROM <em>because</em> it was required to enable the full functionality of the game machine.  So using your trademarked name as a "magic number" will not prevent others from connecting to your device or software legally.  Once you use the trademark for a purpose <em>other</em> than identifying your business or product, it may become fair game in that other context.</p><p>If they were misrepresenting themselves to USERS as an Apple device in order to make sales (like the famous "Rollex Watch"), then they'd be in big trouble, but if all they're doing is misrepresenting themselves to the <em>machine</em> in order to get around some technical limitations of the software, then they should be fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an earlier case involving game carts and embedded trademarked identifiers where it was ruled that another company was allowed to use a particular trademark embedded in ROM because it was required to enable the full functionality of the game machine .
So using your trademarked name as a " magic number " will not prevent others from connecting to your device or software legally .
Once you use the trademark for a purpose other than identifying your business or product , it may become fair game in that other context.If they were misrepresenting themselves to USERS as an Apple device in order to make sales ( like the famous " Rollex Watch " ) , then they 'd be in big trouble , but if all they 're doing is misrepresenting themselves to the machine in order to get around some technical limitations of the software , then they should be fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an earlier case involving game carts and embedded trademarked identifiers where it was ruled that another company was allowed to use a particular trademark embedded in ROM because it was required to enable the full functionality of the game machine.
So using your trademarked name as a "magic number" will not prevent others from connecting to your device or software legally.
Once you use the trademark for a purpose other than identifying your business or product, it may become fair game in that other context.If they were misrepresenting themselves to USERS as an Apple device in order to make sales (like the famous "Rollex Watch"), then they'd be in big trouble, but if all they're doing is misrepresenting themselves to the machine in order to get around some technical limitations of the software, then they should be fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217637</id>
	<title>Re:Antitrust?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look cheaper than suing, Apple can just patch it which forces Palm to patch it if they ever offer this as a feature because their users will cry if they don't.  Repeat this over and over plus in between wipe out a Pre or two in the process.  The loser will most definitely be Apple.  Palm should focus on getting Sync software working on all platforms and let Amazon handle their Music needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look cheaper than suing , Apple can just patch it which forces Palm to patch it if they ever offer this as a feature because their users will cry if they do n't .
Repeat this over and over plus in between wipe out a Pre or two in the process .
The loser will most definitely be Apple .
Palm should focus on getting Sync software working on all platforms and let Amazon handle their Music needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look cheaper than suing, Apple can just patch it which forces Palm to patch it if they ever offer this as a feature because their users will cry if they don't.
Repeat this over and over plus in between wipe out a Pre or two in the process.
The loser will most definitely be Apple.
Palm should focus on getting Sync software working on all platforms and let Amazon handle their Music needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212447</id>
	<title>Why would Apple care?</title>
	<author>Alcimedes</author>
	<datestamp>1244142180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the end of the day, I guess I'm missing why everyone thinks Apple would care?</p><p>The Pre isn't sold by AT&amp;T, and in the US everyone is basically tied to long term carrier based contracts to get smart phones.  So if you own a Pre, you're not going to be getting an iPhone for at least a year or two at best.</p><p>So why would you want to block the device from working with your music store at that point?  There's no lost hardware sale, but if you play nice you'll keep getting music sales.  Maybe if you do a good enough job with your software/interface etc. you can get a Pre user to look at an iPhone in year's time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end of the day , I guess I 'm missing why everyone thinks Apple would care ? The Pre is n't sold by AT&amp;T , and in the US everyone is basically tied to long term carrier based contracts to get smart phones .
So if you own a Pre , you 're not going to be getting an iPhone for at least a year or two at best.So why would you want to block the device from working with your music store at that point ?
There 's no lost hardware sale , but if you play nice you 'll keep getting music sales .
Maybe if you do a good enough job with your software/interface etc .
you can get a Pre user to look at an iPhone in year 's time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the end of the day, I guess I'm missing why everyone thinks Apple would care?The Pre isn't sold by AT&amp;T, and in the US everyone is basically tied to long term carrier based contracts to get smart phones.
So if you own a Pre, you're not going to be getting an iPhone for at least a year or two at best.So why would you want to block the device from working with your music store at that point?
There's no lost hardware sale, but if you play nice you'll keep getting music sales.
Maybe if you do a good enough job with your software/interface etc.
you can get a Pre user to look at an iPhone in year's time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28221055</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1244210460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only thing that's sickening is the weak analogy you presented that somehow Apple == Microsoft.</p></div><p>First off, when the Microsoft mantra "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" was chanted in the halls of Microsoft, they were NOT a monopoly, and yes, they <em>were</em> being anti-competitive.</p><p>Nobody is accusing Apple of being a monopoly.  But being anti-competitive is just as evil.</p><p>Your problem is that you are confusing "legality" with "morality".  The two words are not synonymous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing that 's sickening is the weak analogy you presented that somehow Apple = = Microsoft.First off , when the Microsoft mantra " DOS is n't done until Lotus wo n't run " was chanted in the halls of Microsoft , they were NOT a monopoly , and yes , they were being anti-competitive.Nobody is accusing Apple of being a monopoly .
But being anti-competitive is just as evil.Your problem is that you are confusing " legality " with " morality " .
The two words are not synonymous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing that's sickening is the weak analogy you presented that somehow Apple == Microsoft.First off, when the Microsoft mantra "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" was chanted in the halls of Microsoft, they were NOT a monopoly, and yes, they were being anti-competitive.Nobody is accusing Apple of being a monopoly.
But being anti-competitive is just as evil.Your problem is that you are confusing "legality" with "morality".
The two words are not synonymous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213735</id>
	<title>Re:Silly Apple, silly Palm</title>
	<author>plazman30</author>
	<datestamp>1244147340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Pre is emulating an older iPod of some kind and is doing it 100\%, then there is little Apple can do to block it, without issuing a firmware update for the entire line of iPods.</p><p>Of course this does open the floodgates for Creative and Sandisk to have an "iTunes Compatability Mode"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Pre is emulating an older iPod of some kind and is doing it 100 \ % , then there is little Apple can do to block it , without issuing a firmware update for the entire line of iPods.Of course this does open the floodgates for Creative and Sandisk to have an " iTunes Compatability Mode "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Pre is emulating an older iPod of some kind and is doing it 100\%, then there is little Apple can do to block it, without issuing a firmware update for the entire line of iPods.Of course this does open the floodgates for Creative and Sandisk to have an "iTunes Compatability Mode"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213383</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244145960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Palm could also make the response text in 'Media Sync' mode user programmable. It would soon become common knowledge what to fill in here to get the desired response.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Palm could also make the response text in 'Media Sync ' mode user programmable .
It would soon become common knowledge what to fill in here to get the desired response .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palm could also make the response text in 'Media Sync' mode user programmable.
It would soon become common knowledge what to fill in here to get the desired response.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212843</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>ailnlv</author>
	<datestamp>1244143800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>banshee? amarok? gtkpod?<br><br>Oh, sorry, you said 3G nano. Then please follow the link -&gt; http://lilserenity.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/virgin-mobile-praise-ubuntu-and-ipod-nano-3g/<br>and scroll over to where it says "THIS IS ONLY NEEDED FOR iPOD NANO 3rd GENERATION or iPOD CLASSIC MODELS (FALL 2007 MODELS)" in a very lame all caps way.<br><br>When can I have my iPod?</htmltext>
<tokenext>banshee ?
amarok ? gtkpod ? Oh , sorry , you said 3G nano .
Then please follow the link - &gt; http : //lilserenity.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/virgin-mobile-praise-ubuntu-and-ipod-nano-3g/and scroll over to where it says " THIS IS ONLY NEEDED FOR iPOD NANO 3rd GENERATION or iPOD CLASSIC MODELS ( FALL 2007 MODELS ) " in a very lame all caps way.When can I have my iPod ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>banshee?
amarok? gtkpod?Oh, sorry, you said 3G nano.
Then please follow the link -&gt; http://lilserenity.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/virgin-mobile-praise-ubuntu-and-ipod-nano-3g/and scroll over to where it says "THIS IS ONLY NEEDED FOR iPOD NANO 3rd GENERATION or iPOD CLASSIC MODELS (FALL 2007 MODELS)" in a very lame all caps way.When can I have my iPod?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215511</id>
	<title>Also, what message does Palm send that way?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1244112660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could it be:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>oh, look, we can't develop our own software for those features so we sneak in into something that works for people</p></div><p>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be : oh , look , we ca n't develop our own software for those features so we sneak in into something that works for people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be:oh, look, we can't develop our own software for those features so we sneak in into something that works for people?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214493</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1244107500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... If Apple were a bit smarter, they would make iTunes available for 50 quid for non-iPod devices.</p></div><p>Haha, what? That is ridiculous. I'm no fanboy, but when it comes to business tactics, apple is incredibly smart (see their market share on media players, as well as the computer prices they get away with for reference). I'd like to see you take over a multi-billion dollar market with ideas like that!</p><p>Why on earth would they want $50 from someone when they will make far more if that person gives in and buys an ipod? They have the VAST majority of the market, and that keeps people buying their hardware. And not just a one time $50 license, but many iPod owners upgrade ipods every few years. That is a recurring income that adds up to WAY more than $50. I wish other devices worked with iTunes, but I sure as hell don't think they're dumb for not allowing that.</p><p>Apple's worst nightmare is that the general populace becomes aware of other good MP3 players, they will NEVER open up itunes, or if for some reason they do, it sure as hell won't be just to make a quick buck on a license.</p><p>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... If Apple were a bit smarter , they would make iTunes available for 50 quid for non-iPod devices.Haha , what ?
That is ridiculous .
I 'm no fanboy , but when it comes to business tactics , apple is incredibly smart ( see their market share on media players , as well as the computer prices they get away with for reference ) .
I 'd like to see you take over a multi-billion dollar market with ideas like that ! Why on earth would they want $ 50 from someone when they will make far more if that person gives in and buys an ipod ?
They have the VAST majority of the market , and that keeps people buying their hardware .
And not just a one time $ 50 license , but many iPod owners upgrade ipods every few years .
That is a recurring income that adds up to WAY more than $ 50 .
I wish other devices worked with iTunes , but I sure as hell do n't think they 're dumb for not allowing that.Apple 's worst nightmare is that the general populace becomes aware of other good MP3 players , they will NEVER open up itunes , or if for some reason they do , it sure as hell wo n't be just to make a quick buck on a license.-Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... If Apple were a bit smarter, they would make iTunes available for 50 quid for non-iPod devices.Haha, what?
That is ridiculous.
I'm no fanboy, but when it comes to business tactics, apple is incredibly smart (see their market share on media players, as well as the computer prices they get away with for reference).
I'd like to see you take over a multi-billion dollar market with ideas like that!Why on earth would they want $50 from someone when they will make far more if that person gives in and buys an ipod?
They have the VAST majority of the market, and that keeps people buying their hardware.
And not just a one time $50 license, but many iPod owners upgrade ipods every few years.
That is a recurring income that adds up to WAY more than $50.
I wish other devices worked with iTunes, but I sure as hell don't think they're dumb for not allowing that.Apple's worst nightmare is that the general populace becomes aware of other good MP3 players, they will NEVER open up itunes, or if for some reason they do, it sure as hell won't be just to make a quick buck on a license.-Taylor
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</id>
	<title>Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244141760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would Apple sue over this?  On what grounds?  There's no copy protection being circumvented, no cryptography being broken, it's a plaintext response.  Also remember when that when Apple <a href="http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/01/22/apple-to-palm-youre.html" title="boingboing.net">suggested legal trouble</a> [boingboing.net] for Palm, Palm suggested that they wouldn't hesitate to <a href="http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/01/23/palm-adjusts-self-do.html" title="boingboing.net">strike back</a> [boingboing.net] with their own patent portfolio.  I can't see either party taking anything to court.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Apple sue over this ?
On what grounds ?
There 's no copy protection being circumvented , no cryptography being broken , it 's a plaintext response .
Also remember when that when Apple suggested legal trouble [ boingboing.net ] for Palm , Palm suggested that they would n't hesitate to strike back [ boingboing.net ] with their own patent portfolio .
I ca n't see either party taking anything to court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Apple sue over this?
On what grounds?
There's no copy protection being circumvented, no cryptography being broken, it's a plaintext response.
Also remember when that when Apple suggested legal trouble [boingboing.net] for Palm, Palm suggested that they wouldn't hesitate to strike back [boingboing.net] with their own patent portfolio.
I can't see either party taking anything to court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215271</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>Trillan</author>
	<datestamp>1244111340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple allows external Mac applications to sync iTunes music to devices other than the iPod. It's the integrated-into-iTunes thing that's a little sketchy. I'm not sure Apple will bother blocking it, though they may rather than going to the effort of properly labeling the Pre in the UI. Leaving iTunes as is, with the device labeled as an iPod, probably isn't going to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple allows external Mac applications to sync iTunes music to devices other than the iPod .
It 's the integrated-into-iTunes thing that 's a little sketchy .
I 'm not sure Apple will bother blocking it , though they may rather than going to the effort of properly labeling the Pre in the UI .
Leaving iTunes as is , with the device labeled as an iPod , probably is n't going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple allows external Mac applications to sync iTunes music to devices other than the iPod.
It's the integrated-into-iTunes thing that's a little sketchy.
I'm not sure Apple will bother blocking it, though they may rather than going to the effort of properly labeling the Pre in the UI.
Leaving iTunes as is, with the device labeled as an iPod, probably isn't going to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214433</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244107200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What was actually said,</p><blockquote><div><p>Palm has a long history of innovation that is reflected in our products and robust patent portfolio (31 pages of patents in Google Patent Search), and we have long been recognized for our fundamental patents in the mobile space. If faced with legal action, we are confident that we have the tools necessary to defend ourselves.</p></div></blockquote><p>This does not necessarially include <i>"strike back with their own patent portfolio"</i>, and may only mean <i>"We know patent law real well: we know our product is defensible on its own."</i></p><p>But I like the strike-back angle. I have to wonder if a patent war with Apple could be more profitable for Palm than their product business, or their business prospects. Especially during a worldwide recession where product sales are going to suck for even good products for the next couple of years. Companies like Palm are going to be pushed into thinking about the unthinkable as a financial way forward.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What was actually said,Palm has a long history of innovation that is reflected in our products and robust patent portfolio ( 31 pages of patents in Google Patent Search ) , and we have long been recognized for our fundamental patents in the mobile space .
If faced with legal action , we are confident that we have the tools necessary to defend ourselves.This does not necessarially include " strike back with their own patent portfolio " , and may only mean " We know patent law real well : we know our product is defensible on its own .
" But I like the strike-back angle .
I have to wonder if a patent war with Apple could be more profitable for Palm than their product business , or their business prospects .
Especially during a worldwide recession where product sales are going to suck for even good products for the next couple of years .
Companies like Palm are going to be pushed into thinking about the unthinkable as a financial way forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was actually said,Palm has a long history of innovation that is reflected in our products and robust patent portfolio (31 pages of patents in Google Patent Search), and we have long been recognized for our fundamental patents in the mobile space.
If faced with legal action, we are confident that we have the tools necessary to defend ourselves.This does not necessarially include "strike back with their own patent portfolio", and may only mean "We know patent law real well: we know our product is defensible on its own.
"But I like the strike-back angle.
I have to wonder if a patent war with Apple could be more profitable for Palm than their product business, or their business prospects.
Especially during a worldwide recession where product sales are going to suck for even good products for the next couple of years.
Companies like Palm are going to be pushed into thinking about the unthinkable as a financial way forward.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212343</id>
	<title>Apple is not a Police Officer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244141700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They are pretending to be an Apple device. I don't think that's legal.</i></p><p>What's the charge?  "Impersonating an Apple Device"?   What law is that exactly...</p><p>As I noted, the only hook is that the USB id has the word Apple which could be a trademark violation... but all the car adaptors looking for iPods have the word "Apple" embedded in order to look for said iPods.  There's a strong case to be made that the string is there for the purpose of interoperability.</p><p>I don't even think it's grey enough an area to be worth a lawsuit.  Did you hear of a suit filed today?  Apple has known exactly how this mimicing would work for a few weeks now, you would have heard something either before or around launch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are pretending to be an Apple device .
I do n't think that 's legal.What 's the charge ?
" Impersonating an Apple Device " ?
What law is that exactly...As I noted , the only hook is that the USB id has the word Apple which could be a trademark violation... but all the car adaptors looking for iPods have the word " Apple " embedded in order to look for said iPods .
There 's a strong case to be made that the string is there for the purpose of interoperability.I do n't even think it 's grey enough an area to be worth a lawsuit .
Did you hear of a suit filed today ?
Apple has known exactly how this mimicing would work for a few weeks now , you would have heard something either before or around launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are pretending to be an Apple device.
I don't think that's legal.What's the charge?
"Impersonating an Apple Device"?
What law is that exactly...As I noted, the only hook is that the USB id has the word Apple which could be a trademark violation... but all the car adaptors looking for iPods have the word "Apple" embedded in order to look for said iPods.
There's a strong case to be made that the string is there for the purpose of interoperability.I don't even think it's grey enough an area to be worth a lawsuit.
Did you hear of a suit filed today?
Apple has known exactly how this mimicing would work for a few weeks now, you would have heard something either before or around launch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212735</id>
	<title>What does this mean for Rosie and her 5 sisters?</title>
	<author>bugeaterr</author>
	<datestamp>1244143440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does this mean for Rosie and her 5 sisters?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does this mean for Rosie and her 5 sisters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does this mean for Rosie and her 5 sisters?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28218307</id>
	<title>Sweet side effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244135160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like nobody's mentioned this yet - by pretending to be an iPod the Pre won't only make itself compatible with iTunes, but also with EVERY OTHER media managing program out there that supports iPods, which is to say pretty much all of them.  Smart move, you can't buy that kind of out-of-the-box compatibility for a new device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like nobody 's mentioned this yet - by pretending to be an iPod the Pre wo n't only make itself compatible with iTunes , but also with EVERY OTHER media managing program out there that supports iPods , which is to say pretty much all of them .
Smart move , you ca n't buy that kind of out-of-the-box compatibility for a new device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like nobody's mentioned this yet - by pretending to be an iPod the Pre won't only make itself compatible with iTunes, but also with EVERY OTHER media managing program out there that supports iPods, which is to say pretty much all of them.
Smart move, you can't buy that kind of out-of-the-box compatibility for a new device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215305</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1244111520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously? Their product is pretending to be an iPod so that it can force a connection with Apple's Intellectual Property (iTunes). I'm pretty sure there's something in the iTunes EULA that prevents non-Apple devices from connecting.</p></div><p>Nope.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
Their product is pretending to be an iPod so that it can force a connection with Apple 's Intellectual Property ( iTunes ) .
I 'm pretty sure there 's something in the iTunes EULA that prevents non-Apple devices from connecting.Nope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
Their product is pretending to be an iPod so that it can force a connection with Apple's Intellectual Property (iTunes).
I'm pretty sure there's something in the iTunes EULA that prevents non-Apple devices from connecting.Nope.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103</id>
	<title>How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit?</title>
	<author>kipin</author>
	<datestamp>1244140740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't imagine a major competitor to the Apple iPhone will be allowed to do this without a lawsuit smacking them in the face. Then again, perhaps Palm wants a lawsuit to bring additional media attention to their device.
<br> <br>
Seems like a risky move by Palm, their entire future most likely rests on this device. Without it succeeding the risk of Palm going under are pretty high. Might as well shoot for the fences I guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine a major competitor to the Apple iPhone will be allowed to do this without a lawsuit smacking them in the face .
Then again , perhaps Palm wants a lawsuit to bring additional media attention to their device .
Seems like a risky move by Palm , their entire future most likely rests on this device .
Without it succeeding the risk of Palm going under are pretty high .
Might as well shoot for the fences I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't imagine a major competitor to the Apple iPhone will be allowed to do this without a lawsuit smacking them in the face.
Then again, perhaps Palm wants a lawsuit to bring additional media attention to their device.
Seems like a risky move by Palm, their entire future most likely rests on this device.
Without it succeeding the risk of Palm going under are pretty high.
Might as well shoot for the fences I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213521</id>
	<title>The answer is in their Income Statement</title>
	<author>docbrody</author>
	<datestamp>1244146440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In strictly financial terms, I wonder if this is a good thing or a bad thing for Apple.
<br> <br>On the one hand exclusivity between iTunes and iPod/phone means you have to have an iPod to use iTunes.  More hardware sales for Apple.
<br> <br>
On the other hand, opening up iTunes to other popular media players <a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">(which technically they do already on a limited basis)</a> [apple.com], means more iTunes Store revenue.  Itunes might also be a gateway application to get people to try other Apple hardware. (Some people do actually like iTunes)
<br> <br>
A close look at Apple's financials would tell us a lot.  I don't care enough about it to go through there 10Ks and 10qs, and they might not even break out the data that you would need, but if they did... you would want to look at where they have the most sales (iPod/iPhone vs. Music/Video downloads).  But you would also want to look at profit margin, and factor in growth assumptions for iTunes downloads vs ipod hardware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In strictly financial terms , I wonder if this is a good thing or a bad thing for Apple .
On the one hand exclusivity between iTunes and iPod/phone means you have to have an iPod to use iTunes .
More hardware sales for Apple .
On the other hand , opening up iTunes to other popular media players ( which technically they do already on a limited basis ) [ apple.com ] , means more iTunes Store revenue .
Itunes might also be a gateway application to get people to try other Apple hardware .
( Some people do actually like iTunes ) A close look at Apple 's financials would tell us a lot .
I do n't care enough about it to go through there 10Ks and 10qs , and they might not even break out the data that you would need , but if they did... you would want to look at where they have the most sales ( iPod/iPhone vs. Music/Video downloads ) .
But you would also want to look at profit margin , and factor in growth assumptions for iTunes downloads vs ipod hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In strictly financial terms, I wonder if this is a good thing or a bad thing for Apple.
On the one hand exclusivity between iTunes and iPod/phone means you have to have an iPod to use iTunes.
More hardware sales for Apple.
On the other hand, opening up iTunes to other popular media players (which technically they do already on a limited basis) [apple.com], means more iTunes Store revenue.
Itunes might also be a gateway application to get people to try other Apple hardware.
(Some people do actually like iTunes)
 
A close look at Apple's financials would tell us a lot.
I don't care enough about it to go through there 10Ks and 10qs, and they might not even break out the data that you would need, but if they did... you would want to look at where they have the most sales (iPod/iPhone vs. Music/Video downloads).
But you would also want to look at profit margin, and factor in growth assumptions for iTunes downloads vs ipod hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215679</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1244113440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>iTunes isn't done until Pre won't run?</p><p>The only thing more sickening than Apple's anti-competitive tactics is their users cheering them on.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sickening? Really? Since when is iTunes a monopoly? The only thing that's sickening is the weak analogy you presented that somehow Apple == Microsoft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>iTunes is n't done until Pre wo n't run ? The only thing more sickening than Apple 's anti-competitive tactics is their users cheering them on.Sickening ?
Really ? Since when is iTunes a monopoly ?
The only thing that 's sickening is the weak analogy you presented that somehow Apple = = Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iTunes isn't done until Pre won't run?The only thing more sickening than Apple's anti-competitive tactics is their users cheering them on.Sickening?
Really? Since when is iTunes a monopoly?
The only thing that's sickening is the weak analogy you presented that somehow Apple == Microsoft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212511</id>
	<title>I see no code here.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1244142480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dumping the USB registers: cool.</p><p>Commentator confusing USB registers with code: not cool.</p><p>Mod DVD Jon +1<br>Mod Slashdot -1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumping the USB registers : cool.Commentator confusing USB registers with code : not cool.Mod DVD Jon + 1Mod Slashdot -1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumping the USB registers: cool.Commentator confusing USB registers with code: not cool.Mod DVD Jon +1Mod Slashdot -1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214905</id>
	<title>Re:Antitrust?</title>
	<author>m50d</author>
	<datestamp>1244109600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Apple isn't doing anything (illegal or otherwise) to interfere or prevent other online music stores from operating.</i> <p>They're using their own proprietary DRM format for the ipod and refusing to license it to anyone else. (Seriously, real asked them; it wasn't even a question of "more money than you've got", it was simply "we're not licensing it"). Seems to me to be very much like MS using secret APIs to make office run faster than lotus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is n't doing anything ( illegal or otherwise ) to interfere or prevent other online music stores from operating .
They 're using their own proprietary DRM format for the ipod and refusing to license it to anyone else .
( Seriously , real asked them ; it was n't even a question of " more money than you 've got " , it was simply " we 're not licensing it " ) .
Seems to me to be very much like MS using secret APIs to make office run faster than lotus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple isn't doing anything (illegal or otherwise) to interfere or prevent other online music stores from operating.
They're using their own proprietary DRM format for the ipod and refusing to license it to anyone else.
(Seriously, real asked them; it wasn't even a question of "more money than you've got", it was simply "we're not licensing it").
Seems to me to be very much like MS using secret APIs to make office run faster than lotus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216855</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244120280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember Palm defined this space long before Apple did</p></div><p>My newton 2100 begs to differ</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember Palm defined this space long before Apple didMy newton 2100 begs to differ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember Palm defined this space long before Apple didMy newton 2100 begs to differ
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213841</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Penguinoflight</author>
	<datestamp>1244147760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess it's a good thing that the Palm Pre is not an iTunes user.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's a good thing that the Palm Pre is not an iTunes user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's a good thing that the Palm Pre is not an iTunes user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212651</id>
	<title>I don't think Apple cares</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1244143140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When has Apple prevented other devices from doing this sort of thing? Without that history, and I can't remember of such an incident, I'm guessing people are trying to hype Palm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When has Apple prevented other devices from doing this sort of thing ?
Without that history , and I ca n't remember of such an incident , I 'm guessing people are trying to hype Palm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When has Apple prevented other devices from doing this sort of thing?
Without that history, and I can't remember of such an incident, I'm guessing people are trying to hype Palm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>ohcrapitssteve</author>
	<datestamp>1244143680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never seen the rules one should follow when releasing a device that might end up in millions of hands, but I'm sure they include the following:<br>
<br>1) Don't use an unstable hack to enable a feature that a very large percentage of potential users will be counting on.
<br>2) Don't base a feature on a cat-and-mouse game. Especially with the likes of Apple, who are really good at that particular game.
<br>3) Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup. Jobs was bragging about patents in the iPhone announcement keynote, for Christ sake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never seen the rules one should follow when releasing a device that might end up in millions of hands , but I 'm sure they include the following : 1 ) Do n't use an unstable hack to enable a feature that a very large percentage of potential users will be counting on .
2 ) Do n't base a feature on a cat-and-mouse game .
Especially with the likes of Apple , who are really good at that particular game .
3 ) Do n't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon , for thou art tasty and good with ketchup .
Jobs was bragging about patents in the iPhone announcement keynote , for Christ sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never seen the rules one should follow when releasing a device that might end up in millions of hands, but I'm sure they include the following:
1) Don't use an unstable hack to enable a feature that a very large percentage of potential users will be counting on.
2) Don't base a feature on a cat-and-mouse game.
Especially with the likes of Apple, who are really good at that particular game.
3) Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup.
Jobs was bragging about patents in the iPhone announcement keynote, for Christ sake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212665</id>
	<title>Seems Like They Could Make a DMCA Complaint</title>
	<author>mikes.song</author>
	<datestamp>1244143140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The anti-circumvention previsions may apply, even if the system was easy to circumvent.  The DMCA says there is a "prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted material."  It's clear that iTunes controls copyrighted material.  Palm is doing something to circumvent what may be the intended behavior of iTunes.  There may be an issue, valid or not.

I was at Google I/O last week, and was surprised that Palm gave an appearance on the main stage.  The I was almost overwhelmed that Apple was no where to be seen.  This move by Palm really seems like something that only Google would have the balls to do.  I wonder if Google is perhaps behind this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The anti-circumvention previsions may apply , even if the system was easy to circumvent .
The DMCA says there is a " prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted material .
" It 's clear that iTunes controls copyrighted material .
Palm is doing something to circumvent what may be the intended behavior of iTunes .
There may be an issue , valid or not .
I was at Google I/O last week , and was surprised that Palm gave an appearance on the main stage .
The I was almost overwhelmed that Apple was no where to be seen .
This move by Palm really seems like something that only Google would have the balls to do .
I wonder if Google is perhaps behind this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The anti-circumvention previsions may apply, even if the system was easy to circumvent.
The DMCA says there is a "prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted material.
"  It's clear that iTunes controls copyrighted material.
Palm is doing something to circumvent what may be the intended behavior of iTunes.
There may be an issue, valid or not.
I was at Google I/O last week, and was surprised that Palm gave an appearance on the main stage.
The I was almost overwhelmed that Apple was no where to be seen.
This move by Palm really seems like something that only Google would have the balls to do.
I wonder if Google is perhaps behind this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212441</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1244142120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sega v. Accolade protects trademark infringement that is necessary for the purpose of interoperability:
<br> <br>
<i>Because the TMSS has the effect of regulating access to the Genesis III console, and because there is no indication in the record of any public or industry awareness of any feasible alternate method of gaining access to the Genesis III, we hold that Sega is primarily responsible for any resultant confusion.</i>
<br> <br>
<a href="http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1561.htm" title="digital-law-online.info">http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1561.htm</a> [digital-law-online.info]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sega v. Accolade protects trademark infringement that is necessary for the purpose of interoperability : Because the TMSS has the effect of regulating access to the Genesis III console , and because there is no indication in the record of any public or industry awareness of any feasible alternate method of gaining access to the Genesis III , we hold that Sega is primarily responsible for any resultant confusion .
http : //digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1561.htm [ digital-law-online.info ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sega v. Accolade protects trademark infringement that is necessary for the purpose of interoperability:
 
Because the TMSS has the effect of regulating access to the Genesis III console, and because there is no indication in the record of any public or industry awareness of any feasible alternate method of gaining access to the Genesis III, we hold that Sega is primarily responsible for any resultant confusion.
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1561.htm [digital-law-online.info]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244141160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are pretending to be an Apple device. I don't think that's legal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are pretending to be an Apple device .
I do n't think that 's legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are pretending to be an Apple device.
I don't think that's legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213013</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1244144520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like how Apple's COO ended the rant about suing everyone with a Hitler joke... You know, because making light of the Holocaust is ever-so-hilarious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how Apple 's COO ended the rant about suing everyone with a Hitler joke... You know , because making light of the Holocaust is ever-so-hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how Apple's COO ended the rant about suing everyone with a Hitler joke... You know, because making light of the Holocaust is ever-so-hilarious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215247</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1244111220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and, I believe, Safari has a "Pretend I'm Internet Explorer" mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and , I believe , Safari has a " Pretend I 'm Internet Explorer " mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and, I believe, Safari has a "Pretend I'm Internet Explorer" mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213419</id>
	<title>Seriously why does Apple Even care</title>
	<author>haplo21112</author>
	<datestamp>1244146080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the Razor Model, the iPOD or any other similar device is the handle, you get that free or cheap, the Music is the Blades, thats where the really cash is in the business.</p><p>I fail to understand why Apple doesn't just throw the doors open anyway, they make the best handle, I doubt any significant portion of the music buying public would stop buying the iPod.  And even so Apple still makes a pile of cash from the music sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the Razor Model , the iPOD or any other similar device is the handle , you get that free or cheap , the Music is the Blades , thats where the really cash is in the business.I fail to understand why Apple does n't just throw the doors open anyway , they make the best handle , I doubt any significant portion of the music buying public would stop buying the iPod .
And even so Apple still makes a pile of cash from the music sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the Razor Model, the iPOD or any other similar device is the handle, you get that free or cheap, the Music is the Blades, thats where the really cash is in the business.I fail to understand why Apple doesn't just throw the doors open anyway, they make the best handle, I doubt any significant portion of the music buying public would stop buying the iPod.
And even so Apple still makes a pile of cash from the music sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28234019</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1244309760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not any more.  You'll notice none of the new MP3 players can natively sync with iTunes while reporting to be themselves via USB.  None.  The Diamond Rio pre-dates the iPod, so it's not exactly a good comparison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not any more .
You 'll notice none of the new MP3 players can natively sync with iTunes while reporting to be themselves via USB .
None. The Diamond Rio pre-dates the iPod , so it 's not exactly a good comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not any more.
You'll notice none of the new MP3 players can natively sync with iTunes while reporting to be themselves via USB.
None.  The Diamond Rio pre-dates the iPod, so it's not exactly a good comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213149</id>
	<title>Reminds me of Acclaim/Sega</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1244145120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Acclaim and Sega had a lawsuit over Acclaim doing something to make games work on Sega's hardware, which resulted in the display of a Sega logo.  The court in that case concluded that it was Sega's fault for making it impossible to interoperate any other way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Acclaim and Sega had a lawsuit over Acclaim doing something to make games work on Sega 's hardware , which resulted in the display of a Sega logo .
The court in that case concluded that it was Sega 's fault for making it impossible to interoperate any other way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Acclaim and Sega had a lawsuit over Acclaim doing something to make games work on Sega's hardware, which resulted in the display of a Sega logo.
The court in that case concluded that it was Sega's fault for making it impossible to interoperate any other way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212609</id>
	<title>Reverse Engineering?</title>
	<author>WilyCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1244143020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How could Palm know how the iPod and iTunes communicate?</p><p>Wouldn't that require some "reverse engineering" (even if it is easy to do)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How could Palm know how the iPod and iTunes communicate ? Would n't that require some " reverse engineering " ( even if it is easy to do ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How could Palm know how the iPod and iTunes communicate?Wouldn't that require some "reverse engineering" (even if it is easy to do)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216237</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>Planesdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1244116620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3) Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup. Jobs was bragging about patents in the iPhone announcement keynote, for Christ sake.</p></div><p>Patents are funny things.  You see, the basic idea is, by telling the US Gov't how you did it, you get an absolute monopoly on that thing for a decade and a half.  But... well....</p><p><b>YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY FILE A CLAIM TO GET A PATENT</b>.</p><p>Those things that Apple actually innovated, that they didn't just lift from Palm OS, and aren't included in the patent applications -- well, aren't covered by a patent</p><p>And as for unfiled patents -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Palm likely has one or two up its sleeve as well, and if even ONE of its patents gets upheld as applicable to the iPhone, you could see the whole thing vanish in a formal patent-sharing arrangement in a week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) Do n't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon , for thou art tasty and good with ketchup .
Jobs was bragging about patents in the iPhone announcement keynote , for Christ sake.Patents are funny things .
You see , the basic idea is , by telling the US Gov't how you did it , you get an absolute monopoly on that thing for a decade and a half .
But... well....YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY FILE A CLAIM TO GET A PATENT.Those things that Apple actually innovated , that they did n't just lift from Palm OS , and are n't included in the patent applications -- well , are n't covered by a patentAnd as for unfiled patents -- what 's good for the goose is good for the gander .
Palm likely has one or two up its sleeve as well , and if even ONE of its patents gets upheld as applicable to the iPhone , you could see the whole thing vanish in a formal patent-sharing arrangement in a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3) Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup.
Jobs was bragging about patents in the iPhone announcement keynote, for Christ sake.Patents are funny things.
You see, the basic idea is, by telling the US Gov't how you did it, you get an absolute monopoly on that thing for a decade and a half.
But... well....YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY FILE A CLAIM TO GET A PATENT.Those things that Apple actually innovated, that they didn't just lift from Palm OS, and aren't included in the patent applications -- well, aren't covered by a patentAnd as for unfiled patents -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Palm likely has one or two up its sleeve as well, and if even ONE of its patents gets upheld as applicable to the iPhone, you could see the whole thing vanish in a formal patent-sharing arrangement in a week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212389</id>
	<title>Re:Antitrust?</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1244141880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple isn't doing anything (illegal or otherwise) to interfere or prevent other online music stores from operating.  iTunes popularity is due to brand loyalty, mind share, convenience, and being first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is n't doing anything ( illegal or otherwise ) to interfere or prevent other online music stores from operating .
iTunes popularity is due to brand loyalty , mind share , convenience , and being first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple isn't doing anything (illegal or otherwise) to interfere or prevent other online music stores from operating.
iTunes popularity is due to brand loyalty, mind share, convenience, and being first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212743</id>
	<title>Am I the only one.....</title>
	<author>Ogre332</author>
	<datestamp>1244143440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who doesn't see this as being a plus for the Pre? iTunes has got to be one of the worst pieces of software out there (be it running on a Mac or anything else).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who does n't see this as being a plus for the Pre ?
iTunes has got to be one of the worst pieces of software out there ( be it running on a Mac or anything else ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who doesn't see this as being a plus for the Pre?
iTunes has got to be one of the worst pieces of software out there (be it running on a Mac or anything else).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212977</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>ailnlv</author>
	<datestamp>1244144280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;1) This is impossible for Apple to block.  If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish?&lt;/quote&gt;<br>Public Key Encryption?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) This is impossible for Apple to block .
If according to USB it 's an iPod , how can Apple distinguish ? Public Key Encryption ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) This is impossible for Apple to block.
If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish?Public Key Encryption?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217935</id>
	<title>Re:Why would Apple care?</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1244130960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Pre isn't sold by AT&amp;T *today*. The exclusivity with sprint runs out in six months. As far as I know, there isn't anything stopping AT&amp;T from offering the pre then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pre is n't sold by AT&amp;T * today * .
The exclusivity with sprint runs out in six months .
As far as I know , there is n't anything stopping AT&amp;T from offering the pre then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pre isn't sold by AT&amp;T *today*.
The exclusivity with sprint runs out in six months.
As far as I know, there isn't anything stopping AT&amp;T from offering the pre then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28218035</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>Ira Sponsible</author>
	<datestamp>1244132040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the smartest human on the planet:<br>
<a href="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/732/how-do-porcupines-mate" title="straightdope.com" rel="nofollow">How do porcupines mate?</a> [straightdope.com] <br>
You asked. But don't feel bad, you're not the first.</p><p>I don't see why people are afraid that Apple will fight the Pre iPod spoof. It just means that they have more people using iTunes, and likely buying stuff from them. These are people like me who have very little interest in iPods/iPhones but are eager to get their hands on a newer, better palm phone.<br>
Flipside: These could be people who have iPods but want a Pre instead of an iPhone and don't want to give up all the stuff they already bought or collected into iTunes, or just don't want to learn a new way to sync the music. But even in this case, Apple can still anticipate continued iTunes revenue, so no reason to fight the Pre.<br>
I just hope that iTunes is not the only method for syncing music to the device, and that media syncing on the new WebOS is much, MUCH faster than it was on older devices. It was always better to just take out the SD card and move the files directly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the smartest human on the planet : How do porcupines mate ?
[ straightdope.com ] You asked .
But do n't feel bad , you 're not the first.I do n't see why people are afraid that Apple will fight the Pre iPod spoof .
It just means that they have more people using iTunes , and likely buying stuff from them .
These are people like me who have very little interest in iPods/iPhones but are eager to get their hands on a newer , better palm phone .
Flipside : These could be people who have iPods but want a Pre instead of an iPhone and do n't want to give up all the stuff they already bought or collected into iTunes , or just do n't want to learn a new way to sync the music .
But even in this case , Apple can still anticipate continued iTunes revenue , so no reason to fight the Pre .
I just hope that iTunes is not the only method for syncing music to the device , and that media syncing on the new WebOS is much , MUCH faster than it was on older devices .
It was always better to just take out the SD card and move the files directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the smartest human on the planet:
How do porcupines mate?
[straightdope.com] 
You asked.
But don't feel bad, you're not the first.I don't see why people are afraid that Apple will fight the Pre iPod spoof.
It just means that they have more people using iTunes, and likely buying stuff from them.
These are people like me who have very little interest in iPods/iPhones but are eager to get their hands on a newer, better palm phone.
Flipside: These could be people who have iPods but want a Pre instead of an iPhone and don't want to give up all the stuff they already bought or collected into iTunes, or just don't want to learn a new way to sync the music.
But even in this case, Apple can still anticipate continued iTunes revenue, so no reason to fight the Pre.
I just hope that iTunes is not the only method for syncing music to the device, and that media syncing on the new WebOS is much, MUCH faster than it was on older devices.
It was always better to just take out the SD card and move the files directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216427</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one.....</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1244117880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No you're not the only one by far.  iTunes is just about the only piece of software left that sends me into a flying rage just about every time I open it.  There is truly just about nothing they couldn't have made worse - from the single threaded locked UI that goes unresponsive for seconds or even minutes with every single click to the complete denial of my ability to do even the simplest things and most obvious things via direct UI actions like add a podcast to my ipod touch, or to the bizarre assumption that I keep my entire photo collection in one single place and that iTunes should go nuts scanning that folder (over a slow network) every time I want to get a single new podcast onto my touch.</p><p>I guess there is some form of human life for which iTunes is intuitive, but it certainly isn't anywhere close to my genetic branch of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No you 're not the only one by far .
iTunes is just about the only piece of software left that sends me into a flying rage just about every time I open it .
There is truly just about nothing they could n't have made worse - from the single threaded locked UI that goes unresponsive for seconds or even minutes with every single click to the complete denial of my ability to do even the simplest things and most obvious things via direct UI actions like add a podcast to my ipod touch , or to the bizarre assumption that I keep my entire photo collection in one single place and that iTunes should go nuts scanning that folder ( over a slow network ) every time I want to get a single new podcast onto my touch.I guess there is some form of human life for which iTunes is intuitive , but it certainly is n't anywhere close to my genetic branch of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No you're not the only one by far.
iTunes is just about the only piece of software left that sends me into a flying rage just about every time I open it.
There is truly just about nothing they couldn't have made worse - from the single threaded locked UI that goes unresponsive for seconds or even minutes with every single click to the complete denial of my ability to do even the simplest things and most obvious things via direct UI actions like add a podcast to my ipod touch, or to the bizarre assumption that I keep my entire photo collection in one single place and that iTunes should go nuts scanning that folder (over a slow network) every time I want to get a single new podcast onto my touch.I guess there is some form of human life for which iTunes is intuitive, but it certainly isn't anywhere close to my genetic branch of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212733</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is not a Police Officer</title>
	<author>PJ1216</author>
	<datestamp>1244143380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's absolutely no trademark issue. Trademarks are for consumer protection. Its to stop people from assuming your product is somehow related to another. The user will never assume its an Apple device as they know full well its a Palm device. Only the machine will be confused.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's absolutely no trademark issue .
Trademarks are for consumer protection .
Its to stop people from assuming your product is somehow related to another .
The user will never assume its an Apple device as they know full well its a Palm device .
Only the machine will be confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's absolutely no trademark issue.
Trademarks are for consumer protection.
Its to stop people from assuming your product is somehow related to another.
The user will never assume its an Apple device as they know full well its a Palm device.
Only the machine will be confused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28218049</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244132220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that it also shows up in iTunes as an iPod. I don't really know the magic number cases, but aren't they distinguishable on the basis that just enabling the functionality doesn't confuse the user about the brand of the product, whereas in this case, a side effect of enabling the functionality is that the Pre is identified to the user as an Apple-branded iPod?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that it also shows up in iTunes as an iPod .
I do n't really know the magic number cases , but are n't they distinguishable on the basis that just enabling the functionality does n't confuse the user about the brand of the product , whereas in this case , a side effect of enabling the functionality is that the Pre is identified to the user as an Apple-branded iPod ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that it also shows up in iTunes as an iPod.
I don't really know the magic number cases, but aren't they distinguishable on the basis that just enabling the functionality doesn't confuse the user about the brand of the product, whereas in this case, a side effect of enabling the functionality is that the Pre is identified to the user as an Apple-branded iPod?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214163</id>
	<title>Re:Antitrust?</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1244149020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I vaguely recall a lawsuit where Apple was sued for limiting the iPod to only iTunes...</p></div><p>Umm, you can't use iPods with other music services and software? Since when?</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...I don't think anybody has challenged the reverse (using something else with iTunes) in court...</p></div><p>I don't even understand what antitrust use you're alleging. Please reference the market you think Apple has monopolized and the secondary market you're thinking someone could sue Apple for undermining. Please make sure you differentiate the iTunes software from the ITunes Music Store in defining your market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I vaguely recall a lawsuit where Apple was sued for limiting the iPod to only iTunes...Umm , you ca n't use iPods with other music services and software ?
Since when ?
...I do n't think anybody has challenged the reverse ( using something else with iTunes ) in court...I do n't even understand what antitrust use you 're alleging .
Please reference the market you think Apple has monopolized and the secondary market you 're thinking someone could sue Apple for undermining .
Please make sure you differentiate the iTunes software from the ITunes Music Store in defining your market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vaguely recall a lawsuit where Apple was sued for limiting the iPod to only iTunes...Umm, you can't use iPods with other music services and software?
Since when?
...I don't think anybody has challenged the reverse (using something else with iTunes) in court...I don't even understand what antitrust use you're alleging.
Please reference the market you think Apple has monopolized and the secondary market you're thinking someone could sue Apple for undermining.
Please make sure you differentiate the iTunes software from the ITunes Music Store in defining your market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213009</id>
	<title>Playing into Apples hands</title>
	<author>grapeape</author>
	<datestamp>1244144460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this means is that Apple will do some sort of firmware check next time around rendering itunes worthless on the Pre which will in turn piss off tons of customers causing backlash at Palm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this means is that Apple will do some sort of firmware check next time around rendering itunes worthless on the Pre which will in turn piss off tons of customers causing backlash at Palm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this means is that Apple will do some sort of firmware check next time around rendering itunes worthless on the Pre which will in turn piss off tons of customers causing backlash at Palm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213999</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>changa</author>
	<datestamp>1244148300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Pre can go "Sure, give me that update...." as it ignores it and moves on with life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pre can go " Sure , give me that update.... " as it ignores it and moves on with life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pre can go "Sure, give me that update...." as it ignores it and moves on with life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115</id>
	<title>Antitrust?</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1244140740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple could sue, and Palm could counter-sue with antitrust claims. After all, Apple does control most of the music market via iTunes.</p><p>I vaguely recall a lawsuit where Apple was sued for limiting the iPod to only iTunes (Apple won), but I don't think anybody has challenged the reverse (using something else with iTunes) in court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple could sue , and Palm could counter-sue with antitrust claims .
After all , Apple does control most of the music market via iTunes.I vaguely recall a lawsuit where Apple was sued for limiting the iPod to only iTunes ( Apple won ) , but I do n't think anybody has challenged the reverse ( using something else with iTunes ) in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple could sue, and Palm could counter-sue with antitrust claims.
After all, Apple does control most of the music market via iTunes.I vaguely recall a lawsuit where Apple was sued for limiting the iPod to only iTunes (Apple won), but I don't think anybody has challenged the reverse (using something else with iTunes) in court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212313</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>insanius</author>
	<datestamp>1244141580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are pretending to be an authority.  I don't think you know the law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are pretending to be an authority .
I do n't think you know the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are pretending to be an authority.
I don't think you know the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216655</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244118960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bit off topic but even though i don't love the DRM of iTunes, i prefer 128 bit AAC over 320 mp3.  I don't need better sound quality than 128 bit AAC, all my devices play AAC, and I don't want to waste the space on my iPhone or iPod with larger music files.
<p>
Is that so wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit off topic but even though i do n't love the DRM of iTunes , i prefer 128 bit AAC over 320 mp3 .
I do n't need better sound quality than 128 bit AAC , all my devices play AAC , and I do n't want to waste the space on my iPhone or iPod with larger music files .
Is that so wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit off topic but even though i don't love the DRM of iTunes, i prefer 128 bit AAC over 320 mp3.
I don't need better sound quality than 128 bit AAC, all my devices play AAC, and I don't want to waste the space on my iPhone or iPod with larger music files.
Is that so wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216491</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244118180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do the porcupines reproduce if they can't touch each other ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do the porcupines reproduce if they ca n't touch each other ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do the porcupines reproduce if they can't touch each other ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212827</id>
	<title>I'm conflicted</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1244143800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
On the one hand, this seems a brilliant and gutsy move by Palm.  On the other hand, I really dislike devices or applications that pretend to be a competitor's.  On the third hand, I dislike even more that this is sometimes necessary to provide some reasonable amount of interoperability.
</p><p>
What would be hilarious is if during the trial they break open a Pre and there's a Nano inside.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand , this seems a brilliant and gutsy move by Palm .
On the other hand , I really dislike devices or applications that pretend to be a competitor 's .
On the third hand , I dislike even more that this is sometimes necessary to provide some reasonable amount of interoperability .
What would be hilarious is if during the trial they break open a Pre and there 's a Nano inside .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
On the one hand, this seems a brilliant and gutsy move by Palm.
On the other hand, I really dislike devices or applications that pretend to be a competitor's.
On the third hand, I dislike even more that this is sometimes necessary to provide some reasonable amount of interoperability.
What would be hilarious is if during the trial they break open a Pre and there's a Nano inside.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212799</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1244143620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1) This is impossible for Apple to block. If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish?</p></div></blockquote><p>You didn't read all the links in the article.</p><p>It's not the case that it's an iPod according to USB.  That's not what Palm did.</p><p>It's a USB device with an array of sub-devices.  The mass storage portion claims to be an iPod mass storage device... but if you look at the whole tree, you can see that it's connected via a Palm device.</p><p>The Pre does not pretend to be an iPod instead of a Pre.  It pretends to be a Pre with an iPod inside it.  Even easier for Apple to block than I had thought, if they care at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) This is impossible for Apple to block .
If according to USB it 's an iPod , how can Apple distinguish ? You did n't read all the links in the article.It 's not the case that it 's an iPod according to USB .
That 's not what Palm did.It 's a USB device with an array of sub-devices .
The mass storage portion claims to be an iPod mass storage device... but if you look at the whole tree , you can see that it 's connected via a Palm device.The Pre does not pretend to be an iPod instead of a Pre .
It pretends to be a Pre with an iPod inside it .
Even easier for Apple to block than I had thought , if they care at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) This is impossible for Apple to block.
If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish?You didn't read all the links in the article.It's not the case that it's an iPod according to USB.
That's not what Palm did.It's a USB device with an array of sub-devices.
The mass storage portion claims to be an iPod mass storage device... but if you look at the whole tree, you can see that it's connected via a Palm device.The Pre does not pretend to be an iPod instead of a Pre.
It pretends to be a Pre with an iPod inside it.
Even easier for Apple to block than I had thought, if they care at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216005</id>
	<title>Re:How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244115300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>reverse engineering for interoperability! it's time it was fully challenged. I need this, my guns and my freedom of speech.</p><p>You can keep the Change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reverse engineering for interoperability !
it 's time it was fully challenged .
I need this , my guns and my freedom of speech.You can keep the Change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reverse engineering for interoperability!
it's time it was fully challenged.
I need this, my guns and my freedom of speech.You can keep the Change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216481</id>
	<title>Media Sync</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1244118120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool. By identifying as an iPod, then it will also seemlessly synch with my linux clients - Banshee on my netbook, &amp; Amarok on my desktop 8)<br>Now if they would only detail the really important sync - calendar, tasks, contacts and mail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool .
By identifying as an iPod , then it will also seemlessly synch with my linux clients - Banshee on my netbook , &amp; Amarok on my desktop 8 ) Now if they would only detail the really important sync - calendar , tasks , contacts and mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool.
By identifying as an iPod, then it will also seemlessly synch with my linux clients - Banshee on my netbook, &amp; Amarok on my desktop 8)Now if they would only detail the really important sync - calendar, tasks, contacts and mail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213287</id>
	<title>itunes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244145600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple will just release new ipod software and Itunes to combat this,</p><p>it would be easier than the courts,</p><p>Itunes 9 will make you do a software update and will toast the pre, lol</p><p>" oh we thought we were updating an Ipod"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple will just release new ipod software and Itunes to combat this,it would be easier than the courts,Itunes 9 will make you do a software update and will toast the pre , lol " oh we thought we were updating an Ipod "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple will just release new ipod software and Itunes to combat this,it would be easier than the courts,Itunes 9 will make you do a software update and will toast the pre, lol" oh we thought we were updating an Ipod"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212775</id>
	<title>Re:Why would Apple care?</title>
	<author>TriZz</author>
	<datestamp>1244143560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple will care because it's one more feature that helps sells a competitors product/hardware.  If I was in the market for new phone/carrier, Apple would want me to buy the iPhone AND use iTunes for music...not just using iTunes for music.

If easy music management is something that I would like on my phone, then the iPhone would be the only choice (other music phones aren't nearly as intuitive about putting music on the phone).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple will care because it 's one more feature that helps sells a competitors product/hardware .
If I was in the market for new phone/carrier , Apple would want me to buy the iPhone AND use iTunes for music...not just using iTunes for music .
If easy music management is something that I would like on my phone , then the iPhone would be the only choice ( other music phones are n't nearly as intuitive about putting music on the phone ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple will care because it's one more feature that helps sells a competitors product/hardware.
If I was in the market for new phone/carrier, Apple would want me to buy the iPhone AND use iTunes for music...not just using iTunes for music.
If easy music management is something that I would like on my phone, then the iPhone would be the only choice (other music phones aren't nearly as intuitive about putting music on the phone).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214589</id>
	<title>Pointless</title>
	<author>Ractive</author>
	<datestamp>1244108160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would anyone want to use iTunes for any device including an iPod or a PRE, how about a Hack so you DON't have to use Itunes for iPod's or any other device.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone want to use iTunes for any device including an iPod or a PRE , how about a Hack so you DO N't have to use Itunes for iPod 's or any other device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone want to use iTunes for any device including an iPod or a PRE, how about a Hack so you DON't have to use Itunes for iPod's or any other device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212309</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>dark\_requiem</author>
	<datestamp>1244141520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple could probably block this fairly easily, actually, without breaking support for any of their own products.<br> <br>

1.)Release new version of iTunes that checks specifically for the Pre.<br>
2.)Release new firmware for existing iPods to ensure they work with the new version of iTunes.<br>
3.)Require a firmware update in order to work with the current version of iTunes.<br>
4.)Require a current version of iTunes in order to access the iTunes store.<br> <br>

And just like that, we have a new version of iTunes that's incompatible with the Pre, which iPod owners need to use in order to access the store.  Yes, Palm can release an update to re-enable compatibility with iTunes (depending on how Apple chose to handle the software/firmware changes, this could be trivial or difficult), but that seriously hurts one of their big selling points for the Pre, namely that it's iTunes compatible.  No one wants a devices whose functionality breaks every few weeks (queue the Microsoft jokes).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple could probably block this fairly easily , actually , without breaking support for any of their own products .
1. ) Release new version of iTunes that checks specifically for the Pre .
2. ) Release new firmware for existing iPods to ensure they work with the new version of iTunes .
3. ) Require a firmware update in order to work with the current version of iTunes .
4. ) Require a current version of iTunes in order to access the iTunes store .
And just like that , we have a new version of iTunes that 's incompatible with the Pre , which iPod owners need to use in order to access the store .
Yes , Palm can release an update to re-enable compatibility with iTunes ( depending on how Apple chose to handle the software/firmware changes , this could be trivial or difficult ) , but that seriously hurts one of their big selling points for the Pre , namely that it 's iTunes compatible .
No one wants a devices whose functionality breaks every few weeks ( queue the Microsoft jokes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple could probably block this fairly easily, actually, without breaking support for any of their own products.
1.)Release new version of iTunes that checks specifically for the Pre.
2.)Release new firmware for existing iPods to ensure they work with the new version of iTunes.
3.)Require a firmware update in order to work with the current version of iTunes.
4.)Require a current version of iTunes in order to access the iTunes store.
And just like that, we have a new version of iTunes that's incompatible with the Pre, which iPod owners need to use in order to access the store.
Yes, Palm can release an update to re-enable compatibility with iTunes (depending on how Apple chose to handle the software/firmware changes, this could be trivial or difficult), but that seriously hurts one of their big selling points for the Pre, namely that it's iTunes compatible.
No one wants a devices whose functionality breaks every few weeks (queue the Microsoft jokes).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217755</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>Narcogen</author>
	<datestamp>1244128860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now, Apple is a fairly large porcupine and Palm a fairly small one. Apple has plenty of reserve cash to throw at lawyers, far more than Palm. And ultimately I think such a battle would be perceived as Palm trying to reclaim lost glory by riding Apple's coattails. It'd be a PR black eye the longer it went on.</p><p>Let's not forget that Apple took Microsoft to the mat with their "look and feel" suit and eventually extracted a cash payment for non-voting stock and a commitment to keep making Office at a time when the company was at their lowest ebb. Now they're fairly strong. I think Palm has a better chance of competing in the marketplace on the merits of their device than they do in the courtroom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , Apple is a fairly large porcupine and Palm a fairly small one .
Apple has plenty of reserve cash to throw at lawyers , far more than Palm .
And ultimately I think such a battle would be perceived as Palm trying to reclaim lost glory by riding Apple 's coattails .
It 'd be a PR black eye the longer it went on.Let 's not forget that Apple took Microsoft to the mat with their " look and feel " suit and eventually extracted a cash payment for non-voting stock and a commitment to keep making Office at a time when the company was at their lowest ebb .
Now they 're fairly strong .
I think Palm has a better chance of competing in the marketplace on the merits of their device than they do in the courtroom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, Apple is a fairly large porcupine and Palm a fairly small one.
Apple has plenty of reserve cash to throw at lawyers, far more than Palm.
And ultimately I think such a battle would be perceived as Palm trying to reclaim lost glory by riding Apple's coattails.
It'd be a PR black eye the longer it went on.Let's not forget that Apple took Microsoft to the mat with their "look and feel" suit and eventually extracted a cash payment for non-voting stock and a commitment to keep making Office at a time when the company was at their lowest ebb.
Now they're fairly strong.
I think Palm has a better chance of competing in the marketplace on the merits of their device than they do in the courtroom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091</id>
	<title>Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244140680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Inevitably Apple will move to block this, making the next model of iPods that much harder to use with open source software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Inevitably Apple will move to block this , making the next model of iPods that much harder to use with open source software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inevitably Apple will move to block this, making the next model of iPods that much harder to use with open source software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213007</id>
	<title>Re:Antitrust?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244144460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>itunes is compatible with a number of players not made by apple: <a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172" title="apple.com">http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172</a> [apple.com]</p><p>The catch is that these can only sync music, which is probably why palm had to fake being an ipod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>itunes is compatible with a number of players not made by apple : http : //support.apple.com/kb/HT2172 [ apple.com ] The catch is that these can only sync music , which is probably why palm had to fake being an ipod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>itunes is compatible with a number of players not made by apple: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172 [apple.com]The catch is that these can only sync music, which is probably why palm had to fake being an ipod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212353</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>harryandthehenderson</author>
	<datestamp>1244141700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have any laws or court rulings to show this? How would this be any more illegal than having Opera show that it's Internet Explorer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have any laws or court rulings to show this ?
How would this be any more illegal than having Opera show that it 's Internet Explorer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have any laws or court rulings to show this?
How would this be any more illegal than having Opera show that it's Internet Explorer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217731</id>
	<title>Who sues?</title>
	<author>qeraser</author>
	<datestamp>1244128560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My thumb drive thinks it's a CDROM drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My thumb drive thinks it 's a CDROM drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thumb drive thinks it's a CDROM drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217923</id>
	<title>BadApple</title>
	<author>kneeslasher</author>
	<datestamp>1244130900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone remember the BadApple plugin that allowed iTunes to sync with any mass storage? It died a death very similar to FacebookSync.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone remember the BadApple plugin that allowed iTunes to sync with any mass storage ?
It died a death very similar to FacebookSync .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone remember the BadApple plugin that allowed iTunes to sync with any mass storage?
It died a death very similar to FacebookSync.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212835</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1244143800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whereas the current generation of iPods is usable with open source software? Gimmie a break dude.</p></div><p>Hell no it's not, but my 4G Photo worked just fine.  Since I replaced it with an 80GB model, I've been cursing the purchase ever since.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whereas the current generation of iPods is usable with open source software ?
Gimmie a break dude.Hell no it 's not , but my 4G Photo worked just fine .
Since I replaced it with an 80GB model , I 've been cursing the purchase ever since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whereas the current generation of iPods is usable with open source software?
Gimmie a break dude.Hell no it's not, but my 4G Photo worked just fine.
Since I replaced it with an 80GB model, I've been cursing the purchase ever since.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212583</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244142900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1.)Release new version of iTunes that checks specifically for the Pre.</p></div></blockquote><p>iTunes isn't done until Pre won't run?</p><p>The only thing more sickening than Apple's anti-competitive tactics is their users cheering them on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) Release new version of iTunes that checks specifically for the Pre.iTunes is n't done until Pre wo n't run ? The only thing more sickening than Apple 's anti-competitive tactics is their users cheering them on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
)Release new version of iTunes that checks specifically for the Pre.iTunes isn't done until Pre won't run?The only thing more sickening than Apple's anti-competitive tactics is their users cheering them on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212661</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244143140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://lilserenity.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/virgin-mobile-praise-ubuntu-and-ipod-nano-3g/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://lilserenity.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/virgin-mobile-praise-ubuntu-and-ipod-nano-3g/</a> [wordpress.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //lilserenity.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/virgin-mobile-praise-ubuntu-and-ipod-nano-3g/ [ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://lilserenity.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/virgin-mobile-praise-ubuntu-and-ipod-nano-3g/ [wordpress.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215067</id>
	<title>BFD</title>
	<author>bonedog73</author>
	<datestamp>1244110560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As usual people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.. BFD!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.. BFD !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.. BFD!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28219493</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244193360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe... but if you were an ex-Apple employee which way would you go?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe... but if you were an ex-Apple employee which way would you go ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe... but if you were an ex-Apple employee which way would you go?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212573</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1244142840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) This is impossible for Apple to block. If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish? They can try to see if any little details are missing, but in the end any probing they do can easily be met by Palm.</p></div><p>If I was Apple, and I intended to be nasty: I would find exactly what iPod model the Pre pretends to be (should be trivial). Next, iTunes checks all the time whether your iPod needs any new software. So Apple fixes a few bugs in that iPod model. Next time you connect your iPod to iTunes, its firmware gets updated. Next time you connect your Pre to iTunes, well, iTunes attempts to install iPod software on a Pre and I have no idea how happy the Pre will be with that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(<br> <br>

Obviously I wouldn't do this right now, I wait until the first million Pres are sold. If Palm doesn't sell a million of them, I wouldn't bother.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) This is impossible for Apple to block .
If according to USB it 's an iPod , how can Apple distinguish ?
They can try to see if any little details are missing , but in the end any probing they do can easily be met by Palm.If I was Apple , and I intended to be nasty : I would find exactly what iPod model the Pre pretends to be ( should be trivial ) .
Next , iTunes checks all the time whether your iPod needs any new software .
So Apple fixes a few bugs in that iPod model .
Next time you connect your iPod to iTunes , its firmware gets updated .
Next time you connect your Pre to iTunes , well , iTunes attempts to install iPod software on a Pre and I have no idea how happy the Pre will be with that : - ( Obviously I would n't do this right now , I wait until the first million Pres are sold .
If Palm does n't sell a million of them , I would n't bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) This is impossible for Apple to block.
If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish?
They can try to see if any little details are missing, but in the end any probing they do can easily be met by Palm.If I was Apple, and I intended to be nasty: I would find exactly what iPod model the Pre pretends to be (should be trivial).
Next, iTunes checks all the time whether your iPod needs any new software.
So Apple fixes a few bugs in that iPod model.
Next time you connect your iPod to iTunes, its firmware gets updated.
Next time you connect your Pre to iTunes, well, iTunes attempts to install iPod software on a Pre and I have no idea how happy the Pre will be with that :-( 

Obviously I wouldn't do this right now, I wait until the first million Pres are sold.
If Palm doesn't sell a million of them, I wouldn't bother.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214059</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244148600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, I have Nano 3G and I use it with Rhythmbox player. Works like charm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Btw, you should also consider Mozilla's Songbird as well, it has interface much similar to iTunes (I tried it too - no problem).</p><p>The only use case, that iTunes is a must, is formatting and performing similar maintenance tasks on it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..  and I do not need your iPod<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>(hooray my first post on Slashdot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D) should create an account someday though..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , I have Nano 3G and I use it with Rhythmbox player .
Works like charm : ) Btw , you should also consider Mozilla 's Songbird as well , it has interface much similar to iTunes ( I tried it too - no problem ) .The only use case , that iTunes is a must , is formatting and performing similar maintenance tasks on it .
.. and I do not need your iPod ; ) ( hooray my first post on Slashdot : D ) should create an account someday though. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, I have Nano 3G and I use it with Rhythmbox player.
Works like charm :) Btw, you should also consider Mozilla's Songbird as well, it has interface much similar to iTunes (I tried it too - no problem).The only use case, that iTunes is a must, is formatting and performing similar maintenance tasks on it.
..  and I do not need your iPod ;)(hooray my first post on Slashdot :D) should create an account someday though..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213091</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>coniferous</author>
	<datestamp>1244144880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a fuss a while back about apple including a checksum in the itunes database file that made it impossible to sync the ipod in other applications. It didn't take programmers very long to crack it, but they did mention that they had to use quite a few cryptography techniques to do it. <br> <br>

Point being, there is a reverse engineering of Apple's software going on. I believe they can be sued for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a fuss a while back about apple including a checksum in the itunes database file that made it impossible to sync the ipod in other applications .
It did n't take programmers very long to crack it , but they did mention that they had to use quite a few cryptography techniques to do it .
Point being , there is a reverse engineering of Apple 's software going on .
I believe they can be sued for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a fuss a while back about apple including a checksum in the itunes database file that made it impossible to sync the ipod in other applications.
It didn't take programmers very long to crack it, but they did mention that they had to use quite a few cryptography techniques to do it.
Point being, there is a reverse engineering of Apple's software going on.
I believe they can be sued for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212997</id>
	<title>good thing for apple</title>
	<author>thoppe</author>
	<datestamp>1244144460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel this is a <strong>good</strong> thing for apple. This means that people using the Pre can go and use iTunes to buy their music. According to Palm's estimates this could mean another 600k iTunes customers in the first quarter. Why would they try to sue? Thats beyond me. They should applaud the fact that they could gain that many customers. </p><p>This is even better news for me personally, as I have an iPhone which I sync to iTunes. Now my SO, who is getting a Pre can also leverage all the music we have on our shared desktop, as well as the videos, podcasts, etc etc. Win Win for me. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel this is a good thing for apple .
This means that people using the Pre can go and use iTunes to buy their music .
According to Palm 's estimates this could mean another 600k iTunes customers in the first quarter .
Why would they try to sue ?
Thats beyond me .
They should applaud the fact that they could gain that many customers .
This is even better news for me personally , as I have an iPhone which I sync to iTunes .
Now my SO , who is getting a Pre can also leverage all the music we have on our shared desktop , as well as the videos , podcasts , etc etc .
Win Win for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel this is a good thing for apple.
This means that people using the Pre can go and use iTunes to buy their music.
According to Palm's estimates this could mean another 600k iTunes customers in the first quarter.
Why would they try to sue?
Thats beyond me.
They should applaud the fact that they could gain that many customers.
This is even better news for me personally, as I have an iPhone which I sync to iTunes.
Now my SO, who is getting a Pre can also leverage all the music we have on our shared desktop, as well as the videos, podcasts, etc etc.
Win Win for me. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212287</id>
	<title>RTFA Much?</title>
	<author>drerwk</author>
	<datestamp>1244141460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Two points:</p><p>1) This is impossible for Apple to block.  If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish?  They can try to see if any little details are missing, but in the end any probing they do can easily be met by Palm.</p></div><p>From TFA:<br>
However, it is only the Mass Storage interface that identifies itself as an iPod. The root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre (not visible in the image above). This means that Apple can very easily update iTunes to block the Pre.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two points : 1 ) This is impossible for Apple to block .
If according to USB it 's an iPod , how can Apple distinguish ?
They can try to see if any little details are missing , but in the end any probing they do can easily be met by Palm.From TFA : However , it is only the Mass Storage interface that identifies itself as an iPod .
The root USB node ( IOUSBDevice ) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre ( not visible in the image above ) .
This means that Apple can very easily update iTunes to block the Pre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two points:1) This is impossible for Apple to block.
If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish?
They can try to see if any little details are missing, but in the end any probing they do can easily be met by Palm.From TFA:
However, it is only the Mass Storage interface that identifies itself as an iPod.
The root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre (not visible in the image above).
This means that Apple can very easily update iTunes to block the Pre.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212131</id>
	<title>Silly Apple, silly Palm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244140860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silly Apple, if it only identifies its devices via a USB identifier, but interacts with them in standard, easily emulated ways, all the while going for the exclusivity angle.</p><p>Silly Palm, for thinking Apple will take this lying down. But kudos for the balls to do it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silly Apple , if it only identifies its devices via a USB identifier , but interacts with them in standard , easily emulated ways , all the while going for the exclusivity angle.Silly Palm , for thinking Apple will take this lying down .
But kudos for the balls to do it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silly Apple, if it only identifies its devices via a USB identifier, but interacts with them in standard, easily emulated ways, all the while going for the exclusivity angle.Silly Palm, for thinking Apple will take this lying down.
But kudos for the balls to do it anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213883</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>changa</author>
	<datestamp>1244147880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Palm is counting on them yelling than then Palm will lean on them with their patents.</p><p>Remember Palm defined this space long before Apple did and from a few quotes from palm recently they are going to use that as leverage.</p><p>Quote from Palm CEO:</p><p>"The whole area of patents is elaborate; a lot of issues there, and a very complex area. One of the things we've done over 15 years is build a very extensive patent portfolio in the mobile computing space, one of the highest-rated patent portfolios in this space, which contains more than 1,500 patents. And the reason you do that is to have a defensive position in the marketplace. It's kind of like two little porcupines going around, and you don't want to touch each other because you might get stung. You peacefully coexist and everything's OK and we keep working together."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Palm is counting on them yelling than then Palm will lean on them with their patents.Remember Palm defined this space long before Apple did and from a few quotes from palm recently they are going to use that as leverage.Quote from Palm CEO : " The whole area of patents is elaborate ; a lot of issues there , and a very complex area .
One of the things we 've done over 15 years is build a very extensive patent portfolio in the mobile computing space , one of the highest-rated patent portfolios in this space , which contains more than 1,500 patents .
And the reason you do that is to have a defensive position in the marketplace .
It 's kind of like two little porcupines going around , and you do n't want to touch each other because you might get stung .
You peacefully coexist and everything 's OK and we keep working together .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Palm is counting on them yelling than then Palm will lean on them with their patents.Remember Palm defined this space long before Apple did and from a few quotes from palm recently they are going to use that as leverage.Quote from Palm CEO:"The whole area of patents is elaborate; a lot of issues there, and a very complex area.
One of the things we've done over 15 years is build a very extensive patent portfolio in the mobile computing space, one of the highest-rated patent portfolios in this space, which contains more than 1,500 patents.
And the reason you do that is to have a defensive position in the marketplace.
It's kind of like two little porcupines going around, and you don't want to touch each other because you might get stung.
You peacefully coexist and everything's OK and we keep working together.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212375</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244141820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if the users were smarter than your average Brit, they'd go to Amazon and buy the music for the same price, sans 50 quid.  I guess Americans inherited their brilliance from somewhere...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if the users were smarter than your average Brit , they 'd go to Amazon and buy the music for the same price , sans 50 quid .
I guess Americans inherited their brilliance from somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if the users were smarter than your average Brit, they'd go to Amazon and buy the music for the same price, sans 50 quid.
I guess Americans inherited their brilliance from somewhere...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212329</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1244141640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is impossible for Apple to block. [...]  Nor is it even unsafe, because the code to support older iPods is pretty stable and will not change over time - the older iPods will always be supported.</p></div><p>As Jon points out in TFA, the Pre still identifies itself as a Pre on it's root device node, even when it's in Media Sync mode, so it's trivial to block, it only requires Apple do so.</p><p> More broadly, Apple can make any scheme like this very difficult for a lot of people for a very long time, enough to make the feature impractical for casual use, which is the whole principle of DRM anyways.  Apple <em>can</em> push firmware updates to the old iPods and make the old owners upgrade before moving on to iTunes 9, or iTunes 8.1.1.2, or whatever, but it's true they can't make people upgrade their iTunes, as long as they just use it as a jukebox and don't need the services, like the Store.  But if you're throwing that overboard, why don't you use a different jukebox that actually supports the Pre legit?  Like, as Jon says, MediaTwist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is impossible for Apple to block .
[ ... ] Nor is it even unsafe , because the code to support older iPods is pretty stable and will not change over time - the older iPods will always be supported.As Jon points out in TFA , the Pre still identifies itself as a Pre on it 's root device node , even when it 's in Media Sync mode , so it 's trivial to block , it only requires Apple do so .
More broadly , Apple can make any scheme like this very difficult for a lot of people for a very long time , enough to make the feature impractical for casual use , which is the whole principle of DRM anyways .
Apple can push firmware updates to the old iPods and make the old owners upgrade before moving on to iTunes 9 , or iTunes 8.1.1.2 , or whatever , but it 's true they ca n't make people upgrade their iTunes , as long as they just use it as a jukebox and do n't need the services , like the Store .
But if you 're throwing that overboard , why do n't you use a different jukebox that actually supports the Pre legit ?
Like , as Jon says , MediaTwist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is impossible for Apple to block.
[...]  Nor is it even unsafe, because the code to support older iPods is pretty stable and will not change over time - the older iPods will always be supported.As Jon points out in TFA, the Pre still identifies itself as a Pre on it's root device node, even when it's in Media Sync mode, so it's trivial to block, it only requires Apple do so.
More broadly, Apple can make any scheme like this very difficult for a lot of people for a very long time, enough to make the feature impractical for casual use, which is the whole principle of DRM anyways.
Apple can push firmware updates to the old iPods and make the old owners upgrade before moving on to iTunes 9, or iTunes 8.1.1.2, or whatever, but it's true they can't make people upgrade their iTunes, as long as they just use it as a jukebox and don't need the services, like the Store.
But if you're throwing that overboard, why don't you use a different jukebox that actually supports the Pre legit?
Like, as Jon says, MediaTwist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214577</id>
	<title>Re:How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit?</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1244108040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me Apple could sue for trademark infringement.  You've got a competitor's device intentionally identifying itself such that it shows up as an "iPod", which is most definitely an Apple trademark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me Apple could sue for trademark infringement .
You 've got a competitor 's device intentionally identifying itself such that it shows up as an " iPod " , which is most definitely an Apple trademark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me Apple could sue for trademark infringement.
You've got a competitor's device intentionally identifying itself such that it shows up as an "iPod", which is most definitely an Apple trademark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217463</id>
	<title>Quite the opposite...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244125380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... I've seen that the list is pretty old and the KB document says it won't be updated anymore.</p><p>But, if Palm wished to sync Mail notes, iCal events, Address Book contacts and Safari Bookmarks, it could be easily done through iSync / Sync Services.</p><p>I tried to find any documentation on how to create a plug-in for a new device to work with iTunes, but found nothing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... I 've seen that the list is pretty old and the KB document says it wo n't be updated anymore.But , if Palm wished to sync Mail notes , iCal events , Address Book contacts and Safari Bookmarks , it could be easily done through iSync / Sync Services.I tried to find any documentation on how to create a plug-in for a new device to work with iTunes , but found nothing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... I've seen that the list is pretty old and the KB document says it won't be updated anymore.But, if Palm wished to sync Mail notes, iCal events, Address Book contacts and Safari Bookmarks, it could be easily done through iSync / Sync Services.I tried to find any documentation on how to create a plug-in for a new device to work with iTunes, but found nothing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212351</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>MrEricSir</author>
	<datestamp>1244141700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whereas the current generation of iPods is usable with open source software?  Gimmie a break dude.  If you can get my goddamn Nano 3G to work with Linux, you can have it.</p><p>(That's right, a free iPod Nano!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whereas the current generation of iPods is usable with open source software ?
Gimmie a break dude .
If you can get my goddamn Nano 3G to work with Linux , you can have it .
( That 's right , a free iPod Nano !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whereas the current generation of iPods is usable with open source software?
Gimmie a break dude.
If you can get my goddamn Nano 3G to work with Linux, you can have it.
(That's right, a free iPod Nano!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213827</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1244147700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is just one little bargaining chip in the pile, it will no doubt be listed by Apple at some point as one of Palm's "transgressions", but in the end this is pretty small beer - they've got "real IP" like dual touch to talk about.. (:rolleyes:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is just one little bargaining chip in the pile , it will no doubt be listed by Apple at some point as one of Palm 's " transgressions " , but in the end this is pretty small beer - they 've got " real IP " like dual touch to talk about.. ( : rolleyes : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is just one little bargaining chip in the pile, it will no doubt be listed by Apple at some point as one of Palm's "transgressions", but in the end this is pretty small beer - they've got "real IP" like dual touch to talk about.. (:rolleyes:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213087</id>
	<title>Re:How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit?</title>
	<author>acklenx</author>
	<datestamp>1244144880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit?</p></div><p>Never... they won't have anyone to sue:
<br> <br>
I think Apple will just introduce a free Palm emulator for the iPhone (even from a third party), and sit back and watch as Palm and the Pre die a phenomenally fast death.
<br> <br>
iTunes on a Palm Pre is nearly insignificant at may garner a few more Pre sales....
All current Palm apps running on an iPhone will tank sales of the Pre
<br> <br>
iPhone + Palm apps <b>&gt; </b> Pre + iTunes</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit ? Never... they wo n't have anyone to sue : I think Apple will just introduce a free Palm emulator for the iPhone ( even from a third party ) , and sit back and watch as Palm and the Pre die a phenomenally fast death .
iTunes on a Palm Pre is nearly insignificant at may garner a few more Pre sales... . All current Palm apps running on an iPhone will tank sales of the Pre iPhone + Palm apps &gt; Pre + iTunes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit?Never... they won't have anyone to sue:
 
I think Apple will just introduce a free Palm emulator for the iPhone (even from a third party), and sit back and watch as Palm and the Pre die a phenomenally fast death.
iTunes on a Palm Pre is nearly insignificant at may garner a few more Pre sales....
All current Palm apps running on an iPhone will tank sales of the Pre
 
iPhone + Palm apps &gt;  Pre + iTunes
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212833</id>
	<title>Argh, why isn't there a standard protocol?</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1244143800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My personal opinion is that there needs to be a documented, open specification for media syncing (media being audio, video, calendars, photos, notes, contacts, etc - all the standard phone/pda data).</p><p>The device can say what file formats it supports. It can provide an icon to the software to display. It can say if it supports photos, calendars, contacts, notes, etc.</p><p>It could be extensible, for custom media types, e.g., games that will only run on a particular device.</p><p>This would be implemented within many free media players quite quickly, so devices that don't come with their own media player will still have options for media syncing. And maybe Apple, with by far the biggest media management software on the market, will be forced to support it one day by a court decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My personal opinion is that there needs to be a documented , open specification for media syncing ( media being audio , video , calendars , photos , notes , contacts , etc - all the standard phone/pda data ) .The device can say what file formats it supports .
It can provide an icon to the software to display .
It can say if it supports photos , calendars , contacts , notes , etc.It could be extensible , for custom media types , e.g. , games that will only run on a particular device.This would be implemented within many free media players quite quickly , so devices that do n't come with their own media player will still have options for media syncing .
And maybe Apple , with by far the biggest media management software on the market , will be forced to support it one day by a court decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My personal opinion is that there needs to be a documented, open specification for media syncing (media being audio, video, calendars, photos, notes, contacts, etc - all the standard phone/pda data).The device can say what file formats it supports.
It can provide an icon to the software to display.
It can say if it supports photos, calendars, contacts, notes, etc.It could be extensible, for custom media types, e.g., games that will only run on a particular device.This would be implemented within many free media players quite quickly, so devices that don't come with their own media player will still have options for media syncing.
And maybe Apple, with by far the biggest media management software on the market, will be forced to support it one day by a court decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216301</id>
	<title>Re:Reverse Engineering?</title>
	<author>ksheff</author>
	<datestamp>1244116980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IIRC, Palm hired a bunch of engineers that used to work at Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , Palm hired a bunch of engineers that used to work at Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, Palm hired a bunch of engineers that used to work at Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212769</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1244143560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure that they both know that in the end Apple would come out ahead in any legal battle. If just by the size of their coffers. But Palm doesn't want to go down that road. Apple doesn't either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that they both know that in the end Apple would come out ahead in any legal battle .
If just by the size of their coffers .
But Palm does n't want to go down that road .
Apple does n't either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that they both know that in the end Apple would come out ahead in any legal battle.
If just by the size of their coffers.
But Palm doesn't want to go down that road.
Apple doesn't either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213793</id>
	<title>Re:DMCA ???</title>
	<author>changa</author>
	<datestamp>1244147580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure if it did violate the DMCA, they are not breaking encryption but only saying "Yeah, I'm an iPod..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if it did violate the DMCA , they are not breaking encryption but only saying " Yeah , I 'm an iPod... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if it did violate the DMCA, they are not breaking encryption but only saying "Yeah, I'm an iPod..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212613</id>
	<title>Good or Bad?</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1244143020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it good, or bad, to reveal Palm's trick?  It only makes it easier for Apple to attack Palm's workaround and I'm not sure how that benefits the majority of the consumers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it good , or bad , to reveal Palm 's trick ?
It only makes it easier for Apple to attack Palm 's workaround and I 'm not sure how that benefits the majority of the consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it good, or bad, to reveal Palm's trick?
It only makes it easier for Apple to attack Palm's workaround and I'm not sure how that benefits the majority of the consumers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213077</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244144760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually\_assured\_destruction" title="wikipedia.org">MAD</a> [wikipedia.org], only with patents!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like MAD [ wikipedia.org ] , only with patents !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like MAD [wikipedia.org], only with patents!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</id>
	<title>Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244140980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two points:</p><p>1) This is impossible for Apple to block.  If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish?  They can try to see if any little details are missing, but in the end any probing they do can easily be met by Palm.</p><p>Nor is it even unsafe, because the code to support older iPods is pretty stable and will not change over time - the older iPods will always be supported.</p><p>2) I'm pretty sure Apple sill not sue.  What legality is there around USB identifiers?  Nothing.  The only hook there is the Apple string in the ID, but I don't think it's enough to put a case around.  Why bother with the expense of a suit.</p><p>It's a clever idea from Palm and I applaud them for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two points : 1 ) This is impossible for Apple to block .
If according to USB it 's an iPod , how can Apple distinguish ?
They can try to see if any little details are missing , but in the end any probing they do can easily be met by Palm.Nor is it even unsafe , because the code to support older iPods is pretty stable and will not change over time - the older iPods will always be supported.2 ) I 'm pretty sure Apple sill not sue .
What legality is there around USB identifiers ?
Nothing. The only hook there is the Apple string in the ID , but I do n't think it 's enough to put a case around .
Why bother with the expense of a suit.It 's a clever idea from Palm and I applaud them for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two points:1) This is impossible for Apple to block.
If according to USB it's an iPod, how can Apple distinguish?
They can try to see if any little details are missing, but in the end any probing they do can easily be met by Palm.Nor is it even unsafe, because the code to support older iPods is pretty stable and will not change over time - the older iPods will always be supported.2) I'm pretty sure Apple sill not sue.
What legality is there around USB identifiers?
Nothing.  The only hook there is the Apple string in the ID, but I don't think it's enough to put a case around.
Why bother with the expense of a suit.It's a clever idea from Palm and I applaud them for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212549</id>
	<title>Apple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244142660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A vendor known as Apple, eh?  Sounds kinda fruity.</p><p><em>{cue the Apple users are/aren't gay jokes}</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A vendor known as Apple , eh ?
Sounds kinda fruity .
{ cue the Apple users are/are n't gay jokes }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A vendor known as Apple, eh?
Sounds kinda fruity.
{cue the Apple users are/aren't gay jokes}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212427</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244142060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are pretending to be an Apple device. I don't think that's legal.</p></div><p>Just like Apple's Safari is <a href="http://developer.apple.com/internet/safari/faq.html#anchor2" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">pretending to be Netscape</a> [apple.com]. Neither is trying to fool consumers (which is what trademarks are all about). They are just trying to work with stupidly written software that refuses to talk to you unless you say you are from Apple/Netscape/etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are pretending to be an Apple device .
I do n't think that 's legal.Just like Apple 's Safari is pretending to be Netscape [ apple.com ] .
Neither is trying to fool consumers ( which is what trademarks are all about ) .
They are just trying to work with stupidly written software that refuses to talk to you unless you say you are from Apple/Netscape/etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are pretending to be an Apple device.
I don't think that's legal.Just like Apple's Safari is pretending to be Netscape [apple.com].
Neither is trying to fool consumers (which is what trademarks are all about).
They are just trying to work with stupidly written software that refuses to talk to you unless you say you are from Apple/Netscape/etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212781</id>
	<title>Re:Antitrust?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244143620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I vaguely recall a lawsuit where Apple was sued for limiting the iPod to only iTunes (Apple won), but I don't think anybody has challenged the reverse (using something else with iTunes) in court.</i></p><p>For some time blackberries can sync with itunes. Might be licensed from apple though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I vaguely recall a lawsuit where Apple was sued for limiting the iPod to only iTunes ( Apple won ) , but I do n't think anybody has challenged the reverse ( using something else with iTunes ) in court.For some time blackberries can sync with itunes .
Might be licensed from apple though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vaguely recall a lawsuit where Apple was sued for limiting the iPod to only iTunes (Apple won), but I don't think anybody has challenged the reverse (using something else with iTunes) in court.For some time blackberries can sync with itunes.
Might be licensed from apple though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215397</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Open Source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244112000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) Don't use an unstable hack to enable a feature that a very large percentage of potential users will be counting on.</p></div><p>If you had not added (2), I'd have to ask what flavour of "unstable" you're complaining about. Since the other type is already covered: you don't know if it's a "hack", or unstable. It might be a 100\% compatible emulation of a specific iPod, with complete bug-for-bug compatibility.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) Don't base a feature on a cat-and-mouse game. Especially with the likes of Apple, who are really good at that particular game.</p></div><p>I'd be <b>very</b> surprised if Apple started updating the firmware of older iPods just because some third rate company offered a compatible device. Apple has essentially abandoned all older iPods the moment a successor was available, because selling new iPods is where the money is. But maybe there's hope and they'll charge you US$ 20 for the privilege of using the next version of iTunes.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3) Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup. Jobs was bragging about patents in the iPhone announcement keynote, for Christ sake.</p></div><p>That's your first good argument. I don't know if it has acutal merits, because I don't know if any part of the protocol is patented (it should not be patentable anyway).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Do n't use an unstable hack to enable a feature that a very large percentage of potential users will be counting on.If you had not added ( 2 ) , I 'd have to ask what flavour of " unstable " you 're complaining about .
Since the other type is already covered : you do n't know if it 's a " hack " , or unstable .
It might be a 100 \ % compatible emulation of a specific iPod , with complete bug-for-bug compatibility.2 ) Do n't base a feature on a cat-and-mouse game .
Especially with the likes of Apple , who are really good at that particular game.I 'd be very surprised if Apple started updating the firmware of older iPods just because some third rate company offered a compatible device .
Apple has essentially abandoned all older iPods the moment a successor was available , because selling new iPods is where the money is .
But maybe there 's hope and they 'll charge you US $ 20 for the privilege of using the next version of iTunes.3 ) Do n't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon , for thou art tasty and good with ketchup .
Jobs was bragging about patents in the iPhone announcement keynote , for Christ sake.That 's your first good argument .
I do n't know if it has acutal merits , because I do n't know if any part of the protocol is patented ( it should not be patentable anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Don't use an unstable hack to enable a feature that a very large percentage of potential users will be counting on.If you had not added (2), I'd have to ask what flavour of "unstable" you're complaining about.
Since the other type is already covered: you don't know if it's a "hack", or unstable.
It might be a 100\% compatible emulation of a specific iPod, with complete bug-for-bug compatibility.2) Don't base a feature on a cat-and-mouse game.
Especially with the likes of Apple, who are really good at that particular game.I'd be very surprised if Apple started updating the firmware of older iPods just because some third rate company offered a compatible device.
Apple has essentially abandoned all older iPods the moment a successor was available, because selling new iPods is where the money is.
But maybe there's hope and they'll charge you US$ 20 for the privilege of using the next version of iTunes.3) Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup.
Jobs was bragging about patents in the iPhone announcement keynote, for Christ sake.That's your first good argument.
I don't know if it has acutal merits, because I don't know if any part of the protocol is patented (it should not be patentable anyway).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212725</id>
	<title>Re:Why would Apple care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244143380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depending on who make this argument, it could actually be worse. AT&amp;T, for instance, would definitely not want to lose market share to Sprint, and thus would likely not want the Pre to sync with iTunes. We've seen Apple reject apps based upon pressure from AT&amp;T (tethering apps, for instance), so it's not totally cut and dry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on who make this argument , it could actually be worse .
AT&amp;T , for instance , would definitely not want to lose market share to Sprint , and thus would likely not want the Pre to sync with iTunes .
We 've seen Apple reject apps based upon pressure from AT&amp;T ( tethering apps , for instance ) , so it 's not totally cut and dry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on who make this argument, it could actually be worse.
AT&amp;T, for instance, would definitely not want to lose market share to Sprint, and thus would likely not want the Pre to sync with iTunes.
We've seen Apple reject apps based upon pressure from AT&amp;T (tethering apps, for instance), so it's not totally cut and dry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212995</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1244144400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's a plaintext response.</p></div><p>Not unlike IE claiming to be Mozilla in useragent strings.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a plaintext response.Not unlike IE claiming to be Mozilla in useragent strings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a plaintext response.Not unlike IE claiming to be Mozilla in useragent strings.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212383</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1244141820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>2) I'm pretty sure Apple sill not sue. What legality is there around USB identifiers? Nothing.</i> </p><p> <strong>Yet.</strong> Apple has sufficient confidence in its litigation tactics to bet a little on the chance of creating by judicial action a new legally-protected pseudo-category of the ever-nebulous legal entity called "Intellectual Property" for Apple-distinctive technical identification data. Especially if they can paint Palm's methods as a circumvention device (irrespective of which copyrights are having their protection "circumvented").</p><p> <i>Why bother with the expense of a suit.</i> </p><p>At the minimum, it tosses hurdles and delays in Palm's way, especially if they can finesse injunctions or an entire appeals sequence out of this. At maximum, they can extend some kind of binding IP protection to technical interface data distinctive to Apple hardware and software, sealing their hegemony. Apple has a good legal team, and those are like swords: once drawn, they become rusty unless used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) I 'm pretty sure Apple sill not sue .
What legality is there around USB identifiers ?
Nothing. Yet .
Apple has sufficient confidence in its litigation tactics to bet a little on the chance of creating by judicial action a new legally-protected pseudo-category of the ever-nebulous legal entity called " Intellectual Property " for Apple-distinctive technical identification data .
Especially if they can paint Palm 's methods as a circumvention device ( irrespective of which copyrights are having their protection " circumvented " ) .
Why bother with the expense of a suit .
At the minimum , it tosses hurdles and delays in Palm 's way , especially if they can finesse injunctions or an entire appeals sequence out of this .
At maximum , they can extend some kind of binding IP protection to technical interface data distinctive to Apple hardware and software , sealing their hegemony .
Apple has a good legal team , and those are like swords : once drawn , they become rusty unless used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 2) I'm pretty sure Apple sill not sue.
What legality is there around USB identifiers?
Nothing.  Yet.
Apple has sufficient confidence in its litigation tactics to bet a little on the chance of creating by judicial action a new legally-protected pseudo-category of the ever-nebulous legal entity called "Intellectual Property" for Apple-distinctive technical identification data.
Especially if they can paint Palm's methods as a circumvention device (irrespective of which copyrights are having their protection "circumvented").
Why bother with the expense of a suit.
At the minimum, it tosses hurdles and delays in Palm's way, especially if they can finesse injunctions or an entire appeals sequence out of this.
At maximum, they can extend some kind of binding IP protection to technical interface data distinctive to Apple hardware and software, sealing their hegemony.
Apple has a good legal team, and those are like swords: once drawn, they become rusty unless used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213705</id>
	<title>If apple sues they're morons</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1244147220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And here is why:<br>
-If they sue, it will alienate the verizon customers using the pre. Those customers may be less likely then to buy whatver tablet dealio is coming to verizon soon.<br>
-They will do nothing but gain market share. People using itunes with their phone right now are all att customers, so they only stand to gain more market share by allowing them in the door.<br>
-They probably couldn't win anyway. Even though they have a small army of lawyers, sometimes that isnt the only deciding factor in legal victory. Apple is not any more immune to antitrust suits than microsoft or att.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here is why : -If they sue , it will alienate the verizon customers using the pre .
Those customers may be less likely then to buy whatver tablet dealio is coming to verizon soon .
-They will do nothing but gain market share .
People using itunes with their phone right now are all att customers , so they only stand to gain more market share by allowing them in the door .
-They probably could n't win anyway .
Even though they have a small army of lawyers , sometimes that isnt the only deciding factor in legal victory .
Apple is not any more immune to antitrust suits than microsoft or att .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here is why:
-If they sue, it will alienate the verizon customers using the pre.
Those customers may be less likely then to buy whatver tablet dealio is coming to verizon soon.
-They will do nothing but gain market share.
People using itunes with their phone right now are all att customers, so they only stand to gain more market share by allowing them in the door.
-They probably couldn't win anyway.
Even though they have a small army of lawyers, sometimes that isnt the only deciding factor in legal victory.
Apple is not any more immune to antitrust suits than microsoft or att.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217985</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one.....</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1244131560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this a plus for the Pre? It uses iTunes through this hack. Because of this hack, Pre users can now USE iTunes instead of something else.</p><p>The Pre hack *expands* the iTunes user base. How is this a win for people who don't like iTunes? It sounds like your 'win' would apply if Palm found a way to play itms content in another program, but that is not the case here. You could say that it's nice to be able to play your itms content on a non-apple device, but that's been possible for a while.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this a plus for the Pre ?
It uses iTunes through this hack .
Because of this hack , Pre users can now USE iTunes instead of something else.The Pre hack * expands * the iTunes user base .
How is this a win for people who do n't like iTunes ?
It sounds like your 'win ' would apply if Palm found a way to play itms content in another program , but that is not the case here .
You could say that it 's nice to be able to play your itms content on a non-apple device , but that 's been possible for a while.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this a plus for the Pre?
It uses iTunes through this hack.
Because of this hack, Pre users can now USE iTunes instead of something else.The Pre hack *expands* the iTunes user base.
How is this a win for people who don't like iTunes?
It sounds like your 'win' would apply if Palm found a way to play itms content in another program, but that is not the case here.
You could say that it's nice to be able to play your itms content on a non-apple device, but that's been possible for a while.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212655</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1244143140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nor is it even unsafe, because the code to support older iPods is pretty stable and will not change over time - the older iPods will always be supported.</p></div></blockquote><p>But iPods can get firmware updates.</p><p>The older iPods will always be supported.  But do you know what happens if you plug in a first generation iPod right now and don't permit iTunes to update its firmware?</p><p>All Apple has to do is put out firmware updates for all the legacy iPods (which they really <em>have</em> done in the past) and require those upgrades for iTunes to continue working.  Apple can block this if they want to.</p><p>Which is kinda stupid on Palm's part, IMO.</p><p>You can use iTunes with other MP3 players -- I have several that still work with it.  If iTunes sees a driver for your music player, it'll work with it.  Palm could have done whatever they wanted and distributed a driver for their device, or they could have emulated a non-Apple device for which iTunes already had a driver (eg. Diamond Rio), which Apple <em>doesn't</em> have the freedom to require firmware updates for.  I can understand why they didn't do the former -- they want users to be able to just plug in the devices and have them work, rather than installing device drivers.  But I think it was unnecessarily risky to spoof an <em>Apple</em> device.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nor is it even unsafe , because the code to support older iPods is pretty stable and will not change over time - the older iPods will always be supported.But iPods can get firmware updates.The older iPods will always be supported .
But do you know what happens if you plug in a first generation iPod right now and do n't permit iTunes to update its firmware ? All Apple has to do is put out firmware updates for all the legacy iPods ( which they really have done in the past ) and require those upgrades for iTunes to continue working .
Apple can block this if they want to.Which is kinda stupid on Palm 's part , IMO.You can use iTunes with other MP3 players -- I have several that still work with it .
If iTunes sees a driver for your music player , it 'll work with it .
Palm could have done whatever they wanted and distributed a driver for their device , or they could have emulated a non-Apple device for which iTunes already had a driver ( eg .
Diamond Rio ) , which Apple does n't have the freedom to require firmware updates for .
I can understand why they did n't do the former -- they want users to be able to just plug in the devices and have them work , rather than installing device drivers .
But I think it was unnecessarily risky to spoof an Apple device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nor is it even unsafe, because the code to support older iPods is pretty stable and will not change over time - the older iPods will always be supported.But iPods can get firmware updates.The older iPods will always be supported.
But do you know what happens if you plug in a first generation iPod right now and don't permit iTunes to update its firmware?All Apple has to do is put out firmware updates for all the legacy iPods (which they really have done in the past) and require those upgrades for iTunes to continue working.
Apple can block this if they want to.Which is kinda stupid on Palm's part, IMO.You can use iTunes with other MP3 players -- I have several that still work with it.
If iTunes sees a driver for your music player, it'll work with it.
Palm could have done whatever they wanted and distributed a driver for their device, or they could have emulated a non-Apple device for which iTunes already had a driver (eg.
Diamond Rio), which Apple doesn't have the freedom to require firmware updates for.
I can understand why they didn't do the former -- they want users to be able to just plug in the devices and have them work, rather than installing device drivers.
But I think it was unnecessarily risky to spoof an Apple device.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216357</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>nxtw</author>
	<datestamp>1244117400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every modern browser does this. And they do this because a long time ago, people were serving simpler/crippled versions of their web pages to browsers other than Netscape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every modern browser does this .
And they do this because a long time ago , people were serving simpler/crippled versions of their web pages to browsers other than Netscape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every modern browser does this.
And they do this because a long time ago, people were serving simpler/crippled versions of their web pages to browsers other than Netscape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213049</id>
	<title>Re:How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit?</title>
	<author>moderatorrater</author>
	<datestamp>1244144640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We could have a run-in between consumer protection laws and the DMCA. I think if it ever went to court, Palm would win since compatibility with itunes can only be a good thing for consumers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We could have a run-in between consumer protection laws and the DMCA .
I think if it ever went to court , Palm would win since compatibility with itunes can only be a good thing for consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could have a run-in between consumer protection laws and the DMCA.
I think if it ever went to court, Palm would win since compatibility with itunes can only be a good thing for consumers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215425</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... why the fuss?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1244112240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Trademark infringement. You weren't thinking very hard if you couldn't come up with that obvious avenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trademark infringement .
You were n't thinking very hard if you could n't come up with that obvious avenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trademark infringement.
You weren't thinking very hard if you couldn't come up with that obvious avenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212869</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1244143920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure Palm can hack it again and again and again. But do you really think that their customers would put up with the hassle of having sync break every few weeks? Apple doesn't have to make iTunes impossible to sync with, just a big enough pain to keep Palm customers annoyed. Its a smart idea, but will go the same way as when Real tried it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure Palm can hack it again and again and again .
But do you really think that their customers would put up with the hassle of having sync break every few weeks ?
Apple does n't have to make iTunes impossible to sync with , just a big enough pain to keep Palm customers annoyed .
Its a smart idea , but will go the same way as when Real tried it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure Palm can hack it again and again and again.
But do you really think that their customers would put up with the hassle of having sync break every few weeks?
Apple doesn't have to make iTunes impossible to sync with, just a big enough pain to keep Palm customers annoyed.
Its a smart idea, but will go the same way as when Real tried it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212831</id>
	<title>Re:Apple cannot block and it's not illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244143800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you think Apple wants a bunch of calls from Pre users? Do you think there aren't a whole lot of them who don't know or don't care that Apple isn't responsible for it? All the users will know is that Apple purposely broke a certain functionality of their phone on purpose. That'll be awesome for Apple's PR team.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think Apple wants a bunch of calls from Pre users ?
Do you think there are n't a whole lot of them who do n't know or do n't care that Apple is n't responsible for it ?
All the users will know is that Apple purposely broke a certain functionality of their phone on purpose .
That 'll be awesome for Apple 's PR team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think Apple wants a bunch of calls from Pre users?
Do you think there aren't a whole lot of them who don't know or don't care that Apple isn't responsible for it?
All the users will know is that Apple purposely broke a certain functionality of their phone on purpose.
That'll be awesome for Apple's PR team.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213783</id>
	<title>Quoth DVD Jon...</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1244147520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In TFA, DVD Jon says this:</p><blockquote><div><p>...when the Pre is in "Media Sync" mode it identifies itself as an Apple iPod. However, it's only the Mass Storage interface that identifies itself as an iPod. The root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre (not visible in the image above). <b>This means that Apple can very easily update iTunes to block the Pre.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Emphasis added by me.</p><p>I agree with him: all Apple has to do is add code to check the root USB node, see that the device is a Palm Pre, and refuse to accept the device as an iPod.</p><p>P.S. If Palm had just gone to Apple and said "we want to make the Palm Pre sync with iTunes", would Apple have been reasonable about it?  I saw a comment on Slashdot mentioning that there are non-Apple devices that sync with iTunes, implying that Apple can be reasonable.  But in this case, the Pre is competing with the iPhone!  I imagine Apple would do anything they could to sandbag a competitor, including denying iTunes.</p><p>Apple won't sue Palm.  But I won't be surprised if they do this check and lock the Pre out of iTunes.</p><p>steveha</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In TFA , DVD Jon says this : ...when the Pre is in " Media Sync " mode it identifies itself as an Apple iPod .
However , it 's only the Mass Storage interface that identifies itself as an iPod .
The root USB node ( IOUSBDevice ) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre ( not visible in the image above ) .
This means that Apple can very easily update iTunes to block the Pre .
Emphasis added by me.I agree with him : all Apple has to do is add code to check the root USB node , see that the device is a Palm Pre , and refuse to accept the device as an iPod.P.S .
If Palm had just gone to Apple and said " we want to make the Palm Pre sync with iTunes " , would Apple have been reasonable about it ?
I saw a comment on Slashdot mentioning that there are non-Apple devices that sync with iTunes , implying that Apple can be reasonable .
But in this case , the Pre is competing with the iPhone !
I imagine Apple would do anything they could to sandbag a competitor , including denying iTunes.Apple wo n't sue Palm .
But I wo n't be surprised if they do this check and lock the Pre out of iTunes.steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In TFA, DVD Jon says this:...when the Pre is in "Media Sync" mode it identifies itself as an Apple iPod.
However, it's only the Mass Storage interface that identifies itself as an iPod.
The root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre (not visible in the image above).
This means that Apple can very easily update iTunes to block the Pre.
Emphasis added by me.I agree with him: all Apple has to do is add code to check the root USB node, see that the device is a Palm Pre, and refuse to accept the device as an iPod.P.S.
If Palm had just gone to Apple and said "we want to make the Palm Pre sync with iTunes", would Apple have been reasonable about it?
I saw a comment on Slashdot mentioning that there are non-Apple devices that sync with iTunes, implying that Apple can be reasonable.
But in this case, the Pre is competing with the iPhone!
I imagine Apple would do anything they could to sandbag a competitor, including denying iTunes.Apple won't sue Palm.
But I won't be surprised if they do this check and lock the Pre out of iTunes.steveha
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212967</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>aardwolf64</author>
	<datestamp>1244144220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously?  Their product is pretending to be an iPod so that it can force a connection with Apple's Intellectual Property (iTunes).  I'm pretty sure there's something in the iTunes EULA that prevents non-Apple devices from connecting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
Their product is pretending to be an iPod so that it can force a connection with Apple 's Intellectual Property ( iTunes ) .
I 'm pretty sure there 's something in the iTunes EULA that prevents non-Apple devices from connecting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
Their product is pretending to be an iPod so that it can force a connection with Apple's Intellectual Property (iTunes).
I'm pretty sure there's something in the iTunes EULA that prevents non-Apple devices from connecting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215199</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is not a Police Officer</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1244111040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's the charge? "Impersonating an Apple Device"? What law is that exactly...</p></div><p>If there were a law, <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/03/a-ridiculous-number-of-ipod-costumes/" title="engadget.com">these people</a> [engadget.com] would have been arrested.</p><p>On second thought, maybe we do need such a law...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the charge ?
" Impersonating an Apple Device " ?
What law is that exactly...If there were a law , these people [ engadget.com ] would have been arrested.On second thought , maybe we do need such a law... : ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the charge?
"Impersonating an Apple Device"?
What law is that exactly...If there were a law, these people [engadget.com] would have been arrested.On second thought, maybe we do need such a law... :^)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28222139</id>
	<title>Re:Antitrust?</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1244215740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're confusing things a bit here.  There is no law against a monopoly.  None.  There are only laws against activity designed to stifle competition to maintain or grow the monopoly.  Like them or not, Apple EARNED their current market share with iTunes, and there is nothing illegal about it.  Palm can sue if Apple does something to illegally stifle competition, but they can't sue just because Apple has a dominant market share in online music distribution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're confusing things a bit here .
There is no law against a monopoly .
None. There are only laws against activity designed to stifle competition to maintain or grow the monopoly .
Like them or not , Apple EARNED their current market share with iTunes , and there is nothing illegal about it .
Palm can sue if Apple does something to illegally stifle competition , but they ca n't sue just because Apple has a dominant market share in online music distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're confusing things a bit here.
There is no law against a monopoly.
None.  There are only laws against activity designed to stifle competition to maintain or grow the monopoly.
Like them or not, Apple EARNED their current market share with iTunes, and there is nothing illegal about it.
Palm can sue if Apple does something to illegally stifle competition, but they can't sue just because Apple has a dominant market share in online music distribution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213347</id>
	<title>Re:How Long Before Apple Files a Lawsuit?</title>
	<author>darrenkopp</author>
	<datestamp>1244145780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the only REAL way apple could sue is if they had copyright over the "sync" process. meaning around the messages they are sending. Since the pre is doing 2 way sync, they are obviously interpreting the commands that itunes is sending and doing whatever it's supposed to do. they couldn't be sued over appearing like an ipod via USB.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the only REAL way apple could sue is if they had copyright over the " sync " process .
meaning around the messages they are sending .
Since the pre is doing 2 way sync , they are obviously interpreting the commands that itunes is sending and doing whatever it 's supposed to do .
they could n't be sued over appearing like an ipod via USB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the only REAL way apple could sue is if they had copyright over the "sync" process.
meaning around the messages they are sending.
Since the pre is doing 2 way sync, they are obviously interpreting the commands that itunes is sending and doing whatever it's supposed to do.
they couldn't be sued over appearing like an ipod via USB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212401</id>
	<title>But that too can chage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244141940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Well, if you read the article you would see that "the root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre", therefore it appears that there are checks that could be put into the next version of iTunes to block this.</i></p><p>That's Palm being kind.</p><p>But that's a simple adjustment for Palm though if needed.  Again, in the end this approach cannot be blocked without blocking legacy iPods if Palm is serious about keeping it.  I don't think Apple will make much of an attempt, if any, to block it... an iTunes version was just pushed and that didn't block anything after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you read the article you would see that " the root USB node ( IOUSBDevice ) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre " , therefore it appears that there are checks that could be put into the next version of iTunes to block this.That 's Palm being kind.But that 's a simple adjustment for Palm though if needed .
Again , in the end this approach can not be blocked without blocking legacy iPods if Palm is serious about keeping it .
I do n't think Apple will make much of an attempt , if any , to block it... an iTunes version was just pushed and that did n't block anything after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you read the article you would see that "the root USB node (IOUSBDevice) still identifies the device as a Palm Pre", therefore it appears that there are checks that could be put into the next version of iTunes to block this.That's Palm being kind.But that's a simple adjustment for Palm though if needed.
Again, in the end this approach cannot be blocked without blocking legacy iPods if Palm is serious about keeping it.
I don't think Apple will make much of an attempt, if any, to block it... an iTunes version was just pushed and that didn't block anything after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215779</id>
	<title>Mozilla</title>
	<author>sochdot</author>
	<datestamp>1244114100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't just about every browser still claim to be Mozilla in the user-agent response?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't just about every browser still claim to be Mozilla in the user-agent response ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't just about every browser still claim to be Mozilla in the user-agent response?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28219493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28234019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28218035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28221055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28222139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28218049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_172212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212843
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213883
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217755
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216491
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28218035
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212995
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214433
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213383
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212967
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215305
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28222139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212573
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212375
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28214493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212583
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215679
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28221055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28219493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28234019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212197
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212427
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212349
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212441
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212343
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28215199
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212339
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28218049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28213327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28217985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28216427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_172212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_172212.28212613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
