<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_20_0026243</id>
	<title>Apple, Others Hit With Lawsuit On Ethernet Patents</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256062980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bth nods an AppleInsider story on a <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/19/apple\_others\_hit\_with\_lawsuit\_over\_90s\_ethernet\_patents.html">patent troll who has gotten hold of fundamental Ethernet patents</a> and is wielding them broadly. Three guesses which US Appeals Court the lawsuit was filed in. <i>"A Texas company has targeted a number of technology companies, including Apple, in a new lawsuit regarding a handful of computer networking patents issued in the 1990s. ... 3Com Corporation was granted four patents from 1994 to 1998 pertaining to network adapters. Two deal with the automatic initiation of data transmission, and one addresses 'host indication optimization.' ... The company's Web site states that U.S. Ethernet Innovations was founded 'to continue 3Com Corporation's successful licensing program related to a portfolio of foundational patents in Ethernet technology.' A press release from the company states that it is the 'owner of the fundamental Ethernet technology developed and sold by 3Com Corporation in the 1990s,' suggesting it purchased the patents. ... In addition to Apple, the lawsuit names Acer, ASUS, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, Hewlett Packard, Sony, and Toshiba as defendants."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bth nods an AppleInsider story on a patent troll who has gotten hold of fundamental Ethernet patents and is wielding them broadly .
Three guesses which US Appeals Court the lawsuit was filed in .
" A Texas company has targeted a number of technology companies , including Apple , in a new lawsuit regarding a handful of computer networking patents issued in the 1990s .
... 3Com Corporation was granted four patents from 1994 to 1998 pertaining to network adapters .
Two deal with the automatic initiation of data transmission , and one addresses 'host indication optimization .
' ... The company 's Web site states that U.S. Ethernet Innovations was founded 'to continue 3Com Corporation 's successful licensing program related to a portfolio of foundational patents in Ethernet technology .
' A press release from the company states that it is the 'owner of the fundamental Ethernet technology developed and sold by 3Com Corporation in the 1990s, ' suggesting it purchased the patents .
... In addition to Apple , the lawsuit names Acer , ASUS , Dell , Fujitsu , Gateway , Hewlett Packard , Sony , and Toshiba as defendants .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bth nods an AppleInsider story on a patent troll who has gotten hold of fundamental Ethernet patents and is wielding them broadly.
Three guesses which US Appeals Court the lawsuit was filed in.
"A Texas company has targeted a number of technology companies, including Apple, in a new lawsuit regarding a handful of computer networking patents issued in the 1990s.
... 3Com Corporation was granted four patents from 1994 to 1998 pertaining to network adapters.
Two deal with the automatic initiation of data transmission, and one addresses 'host indication optimization.
' ... The company's Web site states that U.S. Ethernet Innovations was founded 'to continue 3Com Corporation's successful licensing program related to a portfolio of foundational patents in Ethernet technology.
' A press release from the company states that it is the 'owner of the fundamental Ethernet technology developed and sold by 3Com Corporation in the 1990s,' suggesting it purchased the patents.
... In addition to Apple, the lawsuit names Acer, ASUS, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, Hewlett Packard, Sony, and Toshiba as defendants.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805147</id>
	<title>Re:Damn!</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1256031300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Irrelevant !<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p><p>First Ethernet was over coax, so you would still be using Ethernet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)):</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet\_over\_coax" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet\_over\_coax</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Irrelevant !
; - ) ) First Ethernet was over coax , so you would still be using Ethernet ; - ) ) : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet \ _over \ _coax [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irrelevant !
;-))First Ethernet was over coax, so you would still be using Ethernet ;-)):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet\_over\_coax [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783</id>
	<title>I before E except after C</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>and is weilding them broadly</i> <p>
Amazing that Slashdot still can't master the technology of the "spellcheck", which I had in WordStar in 1987.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and is weilding them broadly Amazing that Slashdot still ca n't master the technology of the " spellcheck " , which I had in WordStar in 1987 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and is weilding them broadly 
Amazing that Slashdot still can't master the technology of the "spellcheck", which I had in WordStar in 1987.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29809449</id>
	<title>Re:New Networking Technology</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1256058240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In late '92/early '93, I wrote a driver for the Intel 82593 controller chip.  This chip used DMA (ISA DMA, 2 channels - one for Tx and one for Rx).</p><p>I still have the databook lying around somewhere; the chip has to be older than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In late '92/early '93 , I wrote a driver for the Intel 82593 controller chip .
This chip used DMA ( ISA DMA , 2 channels - one for Tx and one for Rx ) .I still have the databook lying around somewhere ; the chip has to be older than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In late '92/early '93, I wrote a driver for the Intel 82593 controller chip.
This chip used DMA (ISA DMA, 2 channels - one for Tx and one for Rx).I still have the databook lying around somewhere; the chip has to be older than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806291</id>
	<title>Go south</title>
	<author>Amanitin</author>
	<datestamp>1256045580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fine kick off for the patent reform would be to shut down that Texas district court. I was going to say 'revolution' and 'burn down' but those words are too big for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fine kick off for the patent reform would be to shut down that Texas district court .
I was going to say 'revolution ' and 'burn down ' but those words are too big for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fine kick off for the patent reform would be to shut down that Texas district court.
I was going to say 'revolution' and 'burn down' but those words are too big for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811519</id>
	<title>Re:New Networking Technology</title>
	<author>tiqui</author>
	<datestamp>1256065200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sooo....</p><p>If using sneakernet, and a guy copies data to a floppy (the physical layer), walks to another guy's machine (wearing a brand of sneakers that are not licensees, of course) and copies the data into that machine while that user is looking away from his machine, is sneakernet in violation?</p><p>I hate patents on broad concepts that anybody would have come up with if he had needed to. Patents should only cover things that anybody in the field could NOT have come up with if he needed them. We need some tech-savy lawyers and judges to put some real muscle into the "obviousness" test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sooo....If using sneakernet , and a guy copies data to a floppy ( the physical layer ) , walks to another guy 's machine ( wearing a brand of sneakers that are not licensees , of course ) and copies the data into that machine while that user is looking away from his machine , is sneakernet in violation ? I hate patents on broad concepts that anybody would have come up with if he had needed to .
Patents should only cover things that anybody in the field could NOT have come up with if he needed them .
We need some tech-savy lawyers and judges to put some real muscle into the " obviousness " test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sooo....If using sneakernet, and a guy copies data to a floppy (the physical layer), walks to another guy's machine (wearing a brand of sneakers that are not licensees, of course) and copies the data into that machine while that user is looking away from his machine, is sneakernet in violation?I hate patents on broad concepts that anybody would have come up with if he had needed to.
Patents should only cover things that anybody in the field could NOT have come up with if he needed them.
We need some tech-savy lawyers and judges to put some real muscle into the "obviousness" test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804571</id>
	<title>As no #1</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255980420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1st =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1st = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1st =)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805211</id>
	<title>Re:Damn!</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1256032620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>pain-in-the-ass coaxial cables.</p></div><p>Those cables weren't <em>that</em> thick...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>pain-in-the-ass coaxial cables.Those cables were n't that thick.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pain-in-the-ass coaxial cables.Those cables weren't that thick...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805759</id>
	<title>Re:Damn!</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1256040180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>pain-in-the-ass coaxial cables.</p></div><p>I think you're doing it wrong.  Your ass does not have a BNC connector.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>pain-in-the-ass coaxial cables.I think you 're doing it wrong .
Your ass does not have a BNC connector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pain-in-the-ass coaxial cables.I think you're doing it wrong.
Your ass does not have a BNC connector.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804699</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255982280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A jury in East Texas will be composed of at least 10 people who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode to work on a brontosaurus.</p><p>The other two will disagree, but they'd sooner strip naked and dance a jig in the town square than open their mouths to disagree.</p><p>Be very afraid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A jury in East Texas will be composed of at least 10 people who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode to work on a brontosaurus.The other two will disagree , but they 'd sooner strip naked and dance a jig in the town square than open their mouths to disagree.Be very afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A jury in East Texas will be composed of at least 10 people who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode to work on a brontosaurus.The other two will disagree, but they'd sooner strip naked and dance a jig in the town square than open their mouths to disagree.Be very afraid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804817</id>
	<title>Why the end user companies?</title>
	<author>Korgan</author>
	<datestamp>1256069880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a little surprising to me. Why would they go after the end user companies that produce computers rather than the much bigger fish that rely on this technology for their core bread and butter?</p><p>Cisco, Foundry, Juniper, F5 and so on all make a lot more sense to go after given that they're less likely to want to risk the chance of losing and more likely to settle the issue out of court.</p><p>Companies like Dell, Apple, Acer, HP and the beige box boys can simply just ignore the patent and say "Talk to Intel/nVidia/chipset vendor X" or simply not include onboard NIC machines and switch to using PCI/USB cards instead.</p><p>Theres not a lot of hope for this suit even at the best of circumstances, but the companies its going after are potentially shielded by the fact they themselves are not likely to produce the chips that handle Ethernet. Merely include chips from someone else (such as Intel) in their products.</p><p>Or am I completely missing something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a little surprising to me .
Why would they go after the end user companies that produce computers rather than the much bigger fish that rely on this technology for their core bread and butter ? Cisco , Foundry , Juniper , F5 and so on all make a lot more sense to go after given that they 're less likely to want to risk the chance of losing and more likely to settle the issue out of court.Companies like Dell , Apple , Acer , HP and the beige box boys can simply just ignore the patent and say " Talk to Intel/nVidia/chipset vendor X " or simply not include onboard NIC machines and switch to using PCI/USB cards instead.Theres not a lot of hope for this suit even at the best of circumstances , but the companies its going after are potentially shielded by the fact they themselves are not likely to produce the chips that handle Ethernet .
Merely include chips from someone else ( such as Intel ) in their products.Or am I completely missing something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a little surprising to me.
Why would they go after the end user companies that produce computers rather than the much bigger fish that rely on this technology for their core bread and butter?Cisco, Foundry, Juniper, F5 and so on all make a lot more sense to go after given that they're less likely to want to risk the chance of losing and more likely to settle the issue out of court.Companies like Dell, Apple, Acer, HP and the beige box boys can simply just ignore the patent and say "Talk to Intel/nVidia/chipset vendor X" or simply not include onboard NIC machines and switch to using PCI/USB cards instead.Theres not a lot of hope for this suit even at the best of circumstances, but the companies its going after are potentially shielded by the fact they themselves are not likely to produce the chips that handle Ethernet.
Merely include chips from someone else (such as Intel) in their products.Or am I completely missing something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29810823</id>
	<title>Re:Why the end user companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256062860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ethernet of old was "DIX": Digital, Intel, Xerox. Safe bet there's other overlapping patents, even if some of the above-named companies camen along after the fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethernet of old was " DIX " : Digital , Intel , Xerox .
Safe bet there 's other overlapping patents , even if some of the above-named companies camen along after the fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethernet of old was "DIX": Digital, Intel, Xerox.
Safe bet there's other overlapping patents, even if some of the above-named companies camen along after the fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811271</id>
	<title>Re:Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256064240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because those companies have money and a patent troll can convince stupid people and a corrupt court to extort that money on their behalf.</p><p>Arguing on matters of logic like this just serves to give this stuff an air of legitimacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because those companies have money and a patent troll can convince stupid people and a corrupt court to extort that money on their behalf.Arguing on matters of logic like this just serves to give this stuff an air of legitimacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because those companies have money and a patent troll can convince stupid people and a corrupt court to extort that money on their behalf.Arguing on matters of logic like this just serves to give this stuff an air of legitimacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804779</id>
	<title>Thankfully PARC Isn't A Patent Troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just imagine what would happen if PARC became a patent troll. The ethernet originated there in the form of an office memo, so they can make a pretty good lawsuit out of that one. Not to mention laser printing, page markup, OOP, groundbreaking work on NLP, rudimentary VLSI and perhaps most famously the GUI. They did loose a landmark case against Apple for the GUI, though.</p><p>It's pretty amazing if you think about it what a few people can do to change the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just imagine what would happen if PARC became a patent troll .
The ethernet originated there in the form of an office memo , so they can make a pretty good lawsuit out of that one .
Not to mention laser printing , page markup , OOP , groundbreaking work on NLP , rudimentary VLSI and perhaps most famously the GUI .
They did loose a landmark case against Apple for the GUI , though.It 's pretty amazing if you think about it what a few people can do to change the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just imagine what would happen if PARC became a patent troll.
The ethernet originated there in the form of an office memo, so they can make a pretty good lawsuit out of that one.
Not to mention laser printing, page markup, OOP, groundbreaking work on NLP, rudimentary VLSI and perhaps most famously the GUI.
They did loose a landmark case against Apple for the GUI, though.It's pretty amazing if you think about it what a few people can do to change the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805365</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1256034660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine.</p></div><p>It's been patented: <a href="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6462644.html" title="freepatentsonline.com">http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6462644.html</a> [freepatentsonline.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine.It 's been patented : http : //www.freepatentsonline.com/6462644.html [ freepatentsonline.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine.It's been patented: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6462644.html [freepatentsonline.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805083</id>
	<title>Patent duration</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1256030460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike copyright terms, which have cancerously grown to effectively more than a century (for every work created more than 30 years before death), patent terms are still at the relatively reasonable lengths copyright used to be.</p><p>It varies by type, but the standard appears to be 20 years. This patent was filed in 1990.</p><p>Someone really did wait until the absolutely last possible moment. In another year, the patent will run out, so we should be able to keep using ethernet without disruption regardless of the outcome.</p><p>However, the damages would likely be retroactive, so the companies involved must still hope that the patent gets tossed out.</p><p>((Also, all of the above is Wikipedia-fueled speculation by a non-lawyer.))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike copyright terms , which have cancerously grown to effectively more than a century ( for every work created more than 30 years before death ) , patent terms are still at the relatively reasonable lengths copyright used to be.It varies by type , but the standard appears to be 20 years .
This patent was filed in 1990.Someone really did wait until the absolutely last possible moment .
In another year , the patent will run out , so we should be able to keep using ethernet without disruption regardless of the outcome.However , the damages would likely be retroactive , so the companies involved must still hope that the patent gets tossed out .
( ( Also , all of the above is Wikipedia-fueled speculation by a non-lawyer .
) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike copyright terms, which have cancerously grown to effectively more than a century (for every work created more than 30 years before death), patent terms are still at the relatively reasonable lengths copyright used to be.It varies by type, but the standard appears to be 20 years.
This patent was filed in 1990.Someone really did wait until the absolutely last possible moment.
In another year, the patent will run out, so we should be able to keep using ethernet without disruption regardless of the outcome.However, the damages would likely be retroactive, so the companies involved must still hope that the patent gets tossed out.
((Also, all of the above is Wikipedia-fueled speculation by a non-lawyer.
))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806015</id>
	<title>Re:but if they waited so long...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256042940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not a lawyer?  Couldn't tell.</p><p>No, patent law doesn't have a "protect it or lose it" feature, unless you mean paying maintenance fees.</p><p>The closest thing to what you're talking about is the ability of the defendants to assert laches, but that's a general equitable doctrine, not patent-specific.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not a lawyer ?
Could n't tell.No , patent law does n't have a " protect it or lose it " feature , unless you mean paying maintenance fees.The closest thing to what you 're talking about is the ability of the defendants to assert laches , but that 's a general equitable doctrine , not patent-specific .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not a lawyer?
Couldn't tell.No, patent law doesn't have a "protect it or lose it" feature, unless you mean paying maintenance fees.The closest thing to what you're talking about is the ability of the defendants to assert laches, but that's a general equitable doctrine, not patent-specific.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808969</id>
	<title>Like these?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256056740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/bsy/coke.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/bsy/coke.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/bsy/coke.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808309</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1256054640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that all these companies have set themselves up as fall guys since they all have legal departments which spout off about "respecting intellectual property".  They can't even use the argument that there is no such thing because their own press releases would be used against them.</p></div><p>Well, that, plus if their sole defense to the patent infringement suit was "intellectual property doesn't exist, your honor", then they wouldn't even make it to the jury trial, because the judge would grant summary judgement against them.  Intellectual property does exist, and to claim it doesn't means you're fighting 500 years of legislative and judicial precedent.  That's a high bar to jump.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that all these companies have set themselves up as fall guys since they all have legal departments which spout off about " respecting intellectual property " .
They ca n't even use the argument that there is no such thing because their own press releases would be used against them.Well , that , plus if their sole defense to the patent infringement suit was " intellectual property does n't exist , your honor " , then they would n't even make it to the jury trial , because the judge would grant summary judgement against them .
Intellectual property does exist , and to claim it does n't means you 're fighting 500 years of legislative and judicial precedent .
That 's a high bar to jump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that all these companies have set themselves up as fall guys since they all have legal departments which spout off about "respecting intellectual property".
They can't even use the argument that there is no such thing because their own press releases would be used against them.Well, that, plus if their sole defense to the patent infringement suit was "intellectual property doesn't exist, your honor", then they wouldn't even make it to the jury trial, because the judge would grant summary judgement against them.
Intellectual property does exist, and to claim it doesn't means you're fighting 500 years of legislative and judicial precedent.
That's a high bar to jump.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29813631</id>
	<title>Re:Damn!</title>
	<author>ThanatosMinor</author>
	<datestamp>1256030160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe not yours...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe not yours.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe not yours...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805303</id>
	<title>New Networking Tech? No, New American Economics!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256033760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The old model was: if sales are down, borrow your way out of debt.<br>The new model is: if sales are down, patently sue yourself out of the red.</p><p>Problem: SCO have long proved this does not work...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The old model was : if sales are down , borrow your way out of debt.The new model is : if sales are down , patently sue yourself out of the red.Problem : SCO have long proved this does not work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old model was: if sales are down, borrow your way out of debt.The new model is: if sales are down, patently sue yourself out of the red.Problem: SCO have long proved this does not work...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807445</id>
	<title>Re:Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1256051220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder why the plaintiff is not suing some obvious companies.</p> </div><p>I don't know if this is actually the case or not, but one reason might be that Cisco had some previous license arrangement with 3com from before the patents were sold.</p><p>It is possible Cisco and the other high end companies actually have a valid license, either directly, or from the past with 3com which might still have some effect in such a case today.</p><p>It is also possible that the way they read the patent, it is more limited than just 'ethernet' which is most likely the case.  Might as well get the companies that sell products closest matching to their interpretation first, and go after the 'maybe' ones later.</p><p>Being a litigation company (or so it would seem at first glance) they might just not realize Cisco exists just yet.</p><p>I have no reason to believe any of the above are actually true, but those are a few reasons why it might be the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why the plaintiff is not suing some obvious companies .
I do n't know if this is actually the case or not , but one reason might be that Cisco had some previous license arrangement with 3com from before the patents were sold.It is possible Cisco and the other high end companies actually have a valid license , either directly , or from the past with 3com which might still have some effect in such a case today.It is also possible that the way they read the patent , it is more limited than just 'ethernet ' which is most likely the case .
Might as well get the companies that sell products closest matching to their interpretation first , and go after the 'maybe ' ones later.Being a litigation company ( or so it would seem at first glance ) they might just not realize Cisco exists just yet.I have no reason to believe any of the above are actually true , but those are a few reasons why it might be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why the plaintiff is not suing some obvious companies.
I don't know if this is actually the case or not, but one reason might be that Cisco had some previous license arrangement with 3com from before the patents were sold.It is possible Cisco and the other high end companies actually have a valid license, either directly, or from the past with 3com which might still have some effect in such a case today.It is also possible that the way they read the patent, it is more limited than just 'ethernet' which is most likely the case.
Might as well get the companies that sell products closest matching to their interpretation first, and go after the 'maybe' ones later.Being a litigation company (or so it would seem at first glance) they might just not realize Cisco exists just yet.I have no reason to believe any of the above are actually true, but those are a few reasons why it might be the case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807161</id>
	<title>Re:brilliant patent!</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1256050020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&lt;sarcasm&gt;It patents the idea of putting a memory buffer on the network card.  Who would have thought of that?&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</p></div><p>No, it doesn't. Hell, if you look at the related art section, which expressly states what the inventors considered to be prior art, they mention "a FIFO buffer on a network interface controller card".  So, congratulations - not only did you misunderstand the claims, you failed to understand the second paragraph of the specification.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It patents the idea of putting a memory buffer on the network card .
Who would have thought of that ? No , it does n't .
Hell , if you look at the related art section , which expressly states what the inventors considered to be prior art , they mention " a FIFO buffer on a network interface controller card " .
So , congratulations - not only did you misunderstand the claims , you failed to understand the second paragraph of the specification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It patents the idea of putting a memory buffer on the network card.
Who would have thought of that?No, it doesn't.
Hell, if you look at the related art section, which expressly states what the inventors considered to be prior art, they mention "a FIFO buffer on a network interface controller card".
So, congratulations - not only did you misunderstand the claims, you failed to understand the second paragraph of the specification.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Legitimacy of the patents aside, I wonder why an Ethernet technology suit would be leveled against companies that do little more than assemble circuit boards.</p></div><p>Because those companies have money and make some indirect use of the technology. They'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Legitimacy of the patents aside , I wonder why an Ethernet technology suit would be leveled against companies that do little more than assemble circuit boards.Because those companies have money and make some indirect use of the technology .
They 'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legitimacy of the patents aside, I wonder why an Ethernet technology suit would be leveled against companies that do little more than assemble circuit boards.Because those companies have money and make some indirect use of the technology.
They'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29820077</id>
	<title>Re:Damn!</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1256067300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compared to a glorified phone cord?   They were thick, annoying and expensive!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compared to a glorified phone cord ?
They were thick , annoying and expensive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compared to a glorified phone cord?
They were thick, annoying and expensive!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806053</id>
	<title>documenting it on swpat.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256043420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've started documenting it here:</p><p><a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/U.S.\_Ethernet\_Innovations\_v.\_many\_defendants\_(2009\%2C\_USA)" title="swpat.org">http://en.swpat.org/wiki/U.S.\_Ethernet\_Innovations\_v.\_many\_defendants\_(2009\%2C\_USA)</a> [swpat.org]</p><p>Help sought.  Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've started documenting it here : http : //en.swpat.org/wiki/U.S. \ _Ethernet \ _Innovations \ _v. \ _many \ _defendants \ _ ( 2009 \ % 2C \ _USA ) [ swpat.org ] Help sought .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've started documenting it here:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/U.S.\_Ethernet\_Innovations\_v.\_many\_defendants\_(2009\%2C\_USA) [swpat.org]Help sought.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808275</id>
	<title>Re:Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>Creepy</author>
	<datestamp>1256054520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree - I was wondering the same thing when I read this.  Apple does manufacture some of their own equipment and was an ethernet pioneer (X-wire was demo'd, and that was a version of 10Mbit ethernet if I recall correctly), but Dell certainly doesn't, and I don't believe ACER does either.</p><p>It seems strange that they're going after end equipment providers because Broadcom, NEC, or other Ethernet hardware manufacturers would make more sense - these are the companies that traditionally would pay for the patents and then pass on that expense to companies like Dell.  The only reason I can think of is they anticipate those companies to settle out of court because east Texas is so notorious for favoring patent trolls.  It would probably help their case if they can prove they've sent cease-and-desist letters to hardware assemblers and show intent to file suit against ethernet hardware manufacturers.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Digging a bit deeper into this, Robert Metcalfe, the inventor of Ethernet, did go to 3Com in the late 1970s.  Not sure if he retained the initial patents, but Google says he currently has four related to Ethernet.  3Com is based in Massachusetts, so it makes sense that they would need to enlist a no name company called U.S. Ethernet Innovations based in east Texas (let me guess... filed in Marshall?) since it is easier to keep the case in east Texas if the filer is from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree - I was wondering the same thing when I read this .
Apple does manufacture some of their own equipment and was an ethernet pioneer ( X-wire was demo 'd , and that was a version of 10Mbit ethernet if I recall correctly ) , but Dell certainly does n't , and I do n't believe ACER does either.It seems strange that they 're going after end equipment providers because Broadcom , NEC , or other Ethernet hardware manufacturers would make more sense - these are the companies that traditionally would pay for the patents and then pass on that expense to companies like Dell .
The only reason I can think of is they anticipate those companies to settle out of court because east Texas is so notorious for favoring patent trolls .
It would probably help their case if they can prove they 've sent cease-and-desist letters to hardware assemblers and show intent to file suit against ethernet hardware manufacturers .
    Digging a bit deeper into this , Robert Metcalfe , the inventor of Ethernet , did go to 3Com in the late 1970s .
Not sure if he retained the initial patents , but Google says he currently has four related to Ethernet .
3Com is based in Massachusetts , so it makes sense that they would need to enlist a no name company called U.S. Ethernet Innovations based in east Texas ( let me guess... filed in Marshall ?
) since it is easier to keep the case in east Texas if the filer is from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree - I was wondering the same thing when I read this.
Apple does manufacture some of their own equipment and was an ethernet pioneer (X-wire was demo'd, and that was a version of 10Mbit ethernet if I recall correctly), but Dell certainly doesn't, and I don't believe ACER does either.It seems strange that they're going after end equipment providers because Broadcom, NEC, or other Ethernet hardware manufacturers would make more sense - these are the companies that traditionally would pay for the patents and then pass on that expense to companies like Dell.
The only reason I can think of is they anticipate those companies to settle out of court because east Texas is so notorious for favoring patent trolls.
It would probably help their case if they can prove they've sent cease-and-desist letters to hardware assemblers and show intent to file suit against ethernet hardware manufacturers.
    Digging a bit deeper into this, Robert Metcalfe, the inventor of Ethernet, did go to 3Com in the late 1970s.
Not sure if he retained the initial patents, but Google says he currently has four related to Ethernet.
3Com is based in Massachusetts, so it makes sense that they would need to enlist a no name company called U.S. Ethernet Innovations based in east Texas (let me guess... filed in Marshall?
) since it is easier to keep the case in east Texas if the filer is from there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29817635</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>SheeEttin</author>
	<datestamp>1256047980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/bsy/coke.html" title="ucsd.edu">http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/bsy/coke.html</a> [ucsd.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/bsy/coke.html [ ucsd.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/users/bsy/coke.html [ucsd.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804935</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256071380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a Texas company filing suit.  What do you want to bet that it's in Marshal, Texas, home of the patent troll?  (Sorry, lawyers call them "NPEs.")</p><p>Microsoft's lawyers were fined by the judge merely for suggesting that there's something wrong with patent trolling (I'm not sure that the Custom XML guys were patent trolls, given how Microsoft screws partners, but I don't like the reason for the fine.)</p><p>Given that juries will be drawn from the local population, I sincerely doubt that it will work against them if this is in Marshal (or anywhere else in EDT).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a Texas company filing suit .
What do you want to bet that it 's in Marshal , Texas , home of the patent troll ?
( Sorry , lawyers call them " NPEs .
" ) Microsoft 's lawyers were fined by the judge merely for suggesting that there 's something wrong with patent trolling ( I 'm not sure that the Custom XML guys were patent trolls , given how Microsoft screws partners , but I do n't like the reason for the fine .
) Given that juries will be drawn from the local population , I sincerely doubt that it will work against them if this is in Marshal ( or anywhere else in EDT ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a Texas company filing suit.
What do you want to bet that it's in Marshal, Texas, home of the patent troll?
(Sorry, lawyers call them "NPEs.
")Microsoft's lawyers were fined by the judge merely for suggesting that there's something wrong with patent trolling (I'm not sure that the Custom XML guys were patent trolls, given how Microsoft screws partners, but I don't like the reason for the fine.
)Given that juries will be drawn from the local population, I sincerely doubt that it will work against them if this is in Marshal (or anywhere else in EDT).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808079</id>
	<title>Re:Damn!</title>
	<author>RivenAleem</author>
	<datestamp>1256053740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's an awful mental image<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an awful mental image : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an awful mental image :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807287</id>
	<title>Re:Why the end user companies?</title>
	<author>Sechr Nibw</author>
	<datestamp>1256050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Possibly because the end companies have more money. Possibly because the end companies won't be ruined by this - they might lose money, but they won't lose their source of income, like the bread and butter companies would. But that would require the Patent Troll to have a heart and a brain...maybe he visited Oz?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibly because the end companies have more money .
Possibly because the end companies wo n't be ruined by this - they might lose money , but they wo n't lose their source of income , like the bread and butter companies would .
But that would require the Patent Troll to have a heart and a brain...maybe he visited Oz ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibly because the end companies have more money.
Possibly because the end companies won't be ruined by this - they might lose money, but they won't lose their source of income, like the bread and butter companies would.
But that would require the Patent Troll to have a heart and a brain...maybe he visited Oz?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805933</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>Virtucon</author>
	<datestamp>1256042220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With regards to standards bodies and patents:  Can you say Rambus?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With regards to standards bodies and patents : Can you say Rambus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With regards to standards bodies and patents:  Can you say Rambus?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811461</id>
	<title>Re:Um, three guesses won't be needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256065020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy, he obviously meant a district court located in a particular circuit.  Props to you for drawing his attention to the distinction between an appeals court and a trial court, but it's a pretty innocent mistake for a layperson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy , he obviously meant a district court located in a particular circuit .
Props to you for drawing his attention to the distinction between an appeals court and a trial court , but it 's a pretty innocent mistake for a layperson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy, he obviously meant a district court located in a particular circuit.
Props to you for drawing his attention to the distinction between an appeals court and a trial court, but it's a pretty innocent mistake for a layperson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804873</id>
	<title>Darl McBride's new job?</title>
	<author>aysa</author>
	<datestamp>1256070540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe he was not terminated, but instead became himself an Ethernet terminator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he was not terminated , but instead became himself an Ethernet terminator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he was not terminated, but instead became himself an Ethernet terminator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805081</id>
	<title>Re:Damn!</title>
	<author>heneon</author>
	<datestamp>1256030460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhh.. Unless this patent was specific to twisted pair (no, didn't read tfa, I must not be new here) going back to coax won't save you. (which is sad, I really loved those missing terminators somewhere in the network.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh.. Unless this patent was specific to twisted pair ( no , did n't read tfa , I must not be new here ) going back to coax wo n't save you .
( which is sad , I really loved those missing terminators somewhere in the network .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh.. Unless this patent was specific to twisted pair (no, didn't read tfa, I must not be new here) going back to coax won't save you.
(which is sad, I really loved those missing terminators somewhere in the network.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29818141</id>
	<title>Re:I before E except after C</title>
	<author>1u3hr</author>
	<datestamp>1256051160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> Where exactly is that quoted from? </i> <p>
It was in the summary when I posted. Slashdot editors sometimes react when you hold them up to derision.</p><p>
Since it wasn't in the original submission or TFA, the credit belongs to kdawson. An editor is supposed to correct mistakes, not add their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where exactly is that quoted from ?
It was in the summary when I posted .
Slashdot editors sometimes react when you hold them up to derision .
Since it was n't in the original submission or TFA , the credit belongs to kdawson .
An editor is supposed to correct mistakes , not add their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Where exactly is that quoted from?
It was in the summary when I posted.
Slashdot editors sometimes react when you hold them up to derision.
Since it wasn't in the original submission or TFA, the credit belongs to kdawson.
An editor is supposed to correct mistakes, not add their own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29815507</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>SectoidRandom</author>
	<datestamp>1256036940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking just that!</p><p>Why Apple, Asus, Toshiba, etc?</p><p>Why not Intel, AMD, Reaktek? You know company's who actually make ethernet chips?</p><p>Sure many of them wouldn't based in the US, such as Realtek, but seriously how many consumer boards out there these days don't use integrated Intel or VIA (AMD) chips?</p><p>Maybe I just don't pay too much attention to these patent-trolls and so don't understand their "blatantly" obvious tactics involved?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking just that ! Why Apple , Asus , Toshiba , etc ? Why not Intel , AMD , Reaktek ?
You know company 's who actually make ethernet chips ? Sure many of them would n't based in the US , such as Realtek , but seriously how many consumer boards out there these days do n't use integrated Intel or VIA ( AMD ) chips ? Maybe I just do n't pay too much attention to these patent-trolls and so do n't understand their " blatantly " obvious tactics involved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking just that!Why Apple, Asus, Toshiba, etc?Why not Intel, AMD, Reaktek?
You know company's who actually make ethernet chips?Sure many of them wouldn't based in the US, such as Realtek, but seriously how many consumer boards out there these days don't use integrated Intel or VIA (AMD) chips?Maybe I just don't pay too much attention to these patent-trolls and so don't understand their "blatantly" obvious tactics involved?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805441</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Networked vending machines exist in Korea.</p><p>I'm assuming also Japan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Networked vending machines exist in Korea.I 'm assuming also Japan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Networked vending machines exist in Korea.I'm assuming also Japan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807043</id>
	<title>Re:Why the end user companies?</title>
	<author>The Second Horseman</author>
	<datestamp>1256049600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about potential damages. There have been a hell of a lot more microcomputers sold in the past 10 to 12 years than network switches. They're going to try to claim damages for each one if companies don't settle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about potential damages .
There have been a hell of a lot more microcomputers sold in the past 10 to 12 years than network switches .
They 're going to try to claim damages for each one if companies do n't settle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about potential damages.
There have been a hell of a lot more microcomputers sold in the past 10 to 12 years than network switches.
They're going to try to claim damages for each one if companies don't settle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806117</id>
	<title>Yet Another Story Of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Apple infringing on patents. When will you iPeople wake up and realize that Apple is <b>NOT</b> the benevolent company that you have all built it up to be?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Apple infringing on patents .
When will you iPeople wake up and realize that Apple is NOT the benevolent company that you have all built it up to be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Apple infringing on patents.
When will you iPeople wake up and realize that Apple is NOT the benevolent company that you have all built it up to be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805325</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1256034120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  These guys are patent trolls and would probably sue their own grandmothers if they could make money on it.<br>2.  This is America, home of the litigious.  Common sense in the system is hard to come by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
These guys are patent trolls and would probably sue their own grandmothers if they could make money on it.2 .
This is America , home of the litigious .
Common sense in the system is hard to come by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
These guys are patent trolls and would probably sue their own grandmothers if they could make money on it.2.
This is America, home of the litigious.
Common sense in the system is hard to come by.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</id>
	<title>Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder why the plaintiff is not suing some obvious companies. Cisco would be an obvious candidate -- and they have deep pockets. But all of the current defendants don't actually make Ethernet equipment. They buy Ethernet chipsets from companies like Intel, Broadcom, AMD, Marvell, VIA, and NVIDIA, among many others. Why isn't the plaintiff suing them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why the plaintiff is not suing some obvious companies .
Cisco would be an obvious candidate -- and they have deep pockets .
But all of the current defendants do n't actually make Ethernet equipment .
They buy Ethernet chipsets from companies like Intel , Broadcom , AMD , Marvell , VIA , and NVIDIA , among many others .
Why is n't the plaintiff suing them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why the plaintiff is not suing some obvious companies.
Cisco would be an obvious candidate -- and they have deep pockets.
But all of the current defendants don't actually make Ethernet equipment.
They buy Ethernet chipsets from companies like Intel, Broadcom, AMD, Marvell, VIA, and NVIDIA, among many others.
Why isn't the plaintiff suing them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806793</id>
	<title>...on to something else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this company is actually successful in bleeding "offending" companies for money that they really aren't entitled to, I see a work-around in the future!!  I hope either the judicial system sees the light (not likely) and tosses these idiots out of court on their but, or the industry just circumvents the DMA procedure with another method of getting the job done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this company is actually successful in bleeding " offending " companies for money that they really are n't entitled to , I see a work-around in the future ! !
I hope either the judicial system sees the light ( not likely ) and tosses these idiots out of court on their but , or the industry just circumvents the DMA procedure with another method of getting the job done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this company is actually successful in bleeding "offending" companies for money that they really aren't entitled to, I see a work-around in the future!!
I hope either the judicial system sees the light (not likely) and tosses these idiots out of court on their but, or the industry just circumvents the DMA procedure with another method of getting the job done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953</id>
	<title>Re:New Networking Technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256072040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There doesn't appear to be anything about this patent that is Ethernet specific.  The claims appear general enough to apply to a modern implementation of virtually any network technology.</p><p>A quick scan seems to indicate that virtually any network adapter that directly accesses transmit descriptors in host memory or writes packets into ring buffers in host memory (i.e. does DMA in any practical way on a packet by packet basis) violates the patent.</p><p>I believe that covers about every state of the art network adapter in existence.  I am somewhat curious about whether there is prior art in the way IBM mainframes handle I/O.  Anyone know enough to comment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There does n't appear to be anything about this patent that is Ethernet specific .
The claims appear general enough to apply to a modern implementation of virtually any network technology.A quick scan seems to indicate that virtually any network adapter that directly accesses transmit descriptors in host memory or writes packets into ring buffers in host memory ( i.e .
does DMA in any practical way on a packet by packet basis ) violates the patent.I believe that covers about every state of the art network adapter in existence .
I am somewhat curious about whether there is prior art in the way IBM mainframes handle I/O .
Anyone know enough to comment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There doesn't appear to be anything about this patent that is Ethernet specific.
The claims appear general enough to apply to a modern implementation of virtually any network technology.A quick scan seems to indicate that virtually any network adapter that directly accesses transmit descriptors in host memory or writes packets into ring buffers in host memory (i.e.
does DMA in any practical way on a packet by packet basis) violates the patent.I believe that covers about every state of the art network adapter in existence.
I am somewhat curious about whether there is prior art in the way IBM mainframes handle I/O.
Anyone know enough to comment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807905</id>
	<title>Re:I before E except after C</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1256053080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>and is weilding them broadly</i> </p><p>
Amazing that Slashdot still can't master the technology of the "spellcheck", which I had in WordStar in 1987.</p></div><p>More amazing still is that <a href="http://engrishfunny.com/" title="engrishfunny.com">spelling errors are still news</a> [engrishfunny.com].  Where exactly is that quoted from?  My 'find text' function (also been around since the 80's) says it's not in TFA nor the summary, and your post has no other parent post...?</p><p>Funnier still is that Firefox's spellcheck dictionary does not have the word "spellcheck".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and is weilding them broadly Amazing that Slashdot still ca n't master the technology of the " spellcheck " , which I had in WordStar in 1987.More amazing still is that spelling errors are still news [ engrishfunny.com ] .
Where exactly is that quoted from ?
My 'find text ' function ( also been around since the 80 's ) says it 's not in TFA nor the summary , and your post has no other parent post... ? Funnier still is that Firefox 's spellcheck dictionary does not have the word " spellcheck " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and is weilding them broadly 
Amazing that Slashdot still can't master the technology of the "spellcheck", which I had in WordStar in 1987.More amazing still is that spelling errors are still news [engrishfunny.com].
Where exactly is that quoted from?
My 'find text' function (also been around since the 80's) says it's not in TFA nor the summary, and your post has no other parent post...?Funnier still is that Firefox's spellcheck dictionary does not have the word "spellcheck".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805279</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>donaldm</author>
	<datestamp>1256033400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think "A Texas company" says it all. I could be wrong but it seems that too many Patent Trolls love Texas. Unfortunately I think trial by jury may not backfire since many cases that go before a jury in Texas do find for the plaintive.<br>
<br>
No I won't read the patent numbered 5,299,313 which was issued in 1994 to 3Com and should have expired by now since I don't want a headache and maybe I just dreamed I was using 10base5 Ethernet in 1982, then 10base2 in 1984 and 10baseT in 1986 although I am fairly sure these existed before those dates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think " A Texas company " says it all .
I could be wrong but it seems that too many Patent Trolls love Texas .
Unfortunately I think trial by jury may not backfire since many cases that go before a jury in Texas do find for the plaintive .
No I wo n't read the patent numbered 5,299,313 which was issued in 1994 to 3Com and should have expired by now since I do n't want a headache and maybe I just dreamed I was using 10base5 Ethernet in 1982 , then 10base2 in 1984 and 10baseT in 1986 although I am fairly sure these existed before those dates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think "A Texas company" says it all.
I could be wrong but it seems that too many Patent Trolls love Texas.
Unfortunately I think trial by jury may not backfire since many cases that go before a jury in Texas do find for the plaintive.
No I won't read the patent numbered 5,299,313 which was issued in 1994 to 3Com and should have expired by now since I don't want a headache and maybe I just dreamed I was using 10base5 Ethernet in 1982, then 10base2 in 1984 and 10baseT in 1986 although I am fairly sure these existed before those dates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29809995</id>
	<title>Not again!</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1256060040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just another company claiming rights over something Xerox invented. Thank God Xerox didn't invent MP3 players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just another company claiming rights over something Xerox invented .
Thank God Xerox did n't invent MP3 players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just another company claiming rights over something Xerox invented.
Thank God Xerox didn't invent MP3 players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807443</id>
	<title>Re:Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>Kalle Barfot</author>
	<datestamp>1256051220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about Xerox? they should be at the top of the list of defendants</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Xerox ?
they should be at the top of the list of defendants</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Xerox?
they should be at the top of the list of defendants</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806041</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256043240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine.</p></div><p>Like <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/RFID/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217701971" title="informationweek.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [informationweek.com]?</p><p>It uses the cell network though, but what the heck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine.Like this [ informationweek.com ] ? It uses the cell network though , but what the heck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine.Like this [informationweek.com]?It uses the cell network though, but what the heck.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805647</id>
	<title>Re:Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1256038680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're probably going after the easy money first. Then once they prevail with the low hanging fruit, they go after the bigger players.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're probably going after the easy money first .
Then once they prevail with the low hanging fruit , they go after the bigger players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're probably going after the easy money first.
Then once they prevail with the low hanging fruit, they go after the bigger players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805465</id>
	<title>Hummmmmm  how drolll .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The named Companys betwee them could most likley by sell and then crap on the troll  a dozen times a day for the next 100 years out of their small change<br>why dont they just tell the troll to go play in the traffic during the rush hour whilst i am driving down the road  Oh ! dear flattened troll    Police report toady a drunken bum got flattened by passing traffic the victim was and unknow patent troll remains will be incinerated tomorow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The named Companys betwee them could most likley by sell and then crap on the troll a dozen times a day for the next 100 years out of their small changewhy dont they just tell the troll to go play in the traffic during the rush hour whilst i am driving down the road Oh !
dear flattened troll Police report toady a drunken bum got flattened by passing traffic the victim was and unknow patent troll remains will be incinerated tomorow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The named Companys betwee them could most likley by sell and then crap on the troll  a dozen times a day for the next 100 years out of their small changewhy dont they just tell the troll to go play in the traffic during the rush hour whilst i am driving down the road  Oh !
dear flattened troll    Police report toady a drunken bum got flattened by passing traffic the victim was and unknow patent troll remains will be incinerated tomorow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805231</id>
	<title>Re:Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256032860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking on deep pockets is risky though - if you win (or they settle out of court) they can pay out big, but they can also afford to mount a strong defence if they decide to fight it out.</p><p>A common strategy is to take on some smaller, weaker player(s) first, bully them into submission, and thus have some air of legitimacy to your claims when you go after the big guys.</p><p>Not that Apple is exactly small-time though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking on deep pockets is risky though - if you win ( or they settle out of court ) they can pay out big , but they can also afford to mount a strong defence if they decide to fight it out.A common strategy is to take on some smaller , weaker player ( s ) first , bully them into submission , and thus have some air of legitimacy to your claims when you go after the big guys.Not that Apple is exactly small-time though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking on deep pockets is risky though - if you win (or they settle out of court) they can pay out big, but they can also afford to mount a strong defence if they decide to fight it out.A common strategy is to take on some smaller, weaker player(s) first, bully them into submission, and thus have some air of legitimacy to your claims when you go after the big guys.Not that Apple is exactly small-time though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29944320</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As US Ethernet Innovations is now going after end users (see their web site for the Retail Operator License Agreement) it could be explained to the Texas jury thus: Imagine someone made you pay extra taxes for your guns because of a 15 year old patent on bullets.<br>The corporations who make computers have Intellectual Property indemnity against their suppliers as no one makes their own Ethernet adaptors anymore. End users don't and that is what the Trolls are going after</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As US Ethernet Innovations is now going after end users ( see their web site for the Retail Operator License Agreement ) it could be explained to the Texas jury thus : Imagine someone made you pay extra taxes for your guns because of a 15 year old patent on bullets.The corporations who make computers have Intellectual Property indemnity against their suppliers as no one makes their own Ethernet adaptors anymore .
End users do n't and that is what the Trolls are going after</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As US Ethernet Innovations is now going after end users (see their web site for the Retail Operator License Agreement) it could be explained to the Texas jury thus: Imagine someone made you pay extra taxes for your guns because of a 15 year old patent on bullets.The corporations who make computers have Intellectual Property indemnity against their suppliers as no one makes their own Ethernet adaptors anymore.
End users don't and that is what the Trolls are going after</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804723</id>
	<title>Re:hardly relevant now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256068920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats exactly what I told all my friends since the network cords i purchased only a year ago became clogged with residual "Ethernet packages" and so had to be discarded immediately before they started to rot and attract "data worms". I have since done away with Ethernet all together and am finding I can get alot more done with only Internet (much faster, no data worms).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats exactly what I told all my friends since the network cords i purchased only a year ago became clogged with residual " Ethernet packages " and so had to be discarded immediately before they started to rot and attract " data worms " .
I have since done away with Ethernet all together and am finding I can get alot more done with only Internet ( much faster , no data worms ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats exactly what I told all my friends since the network cords i purchased only a year ago became clogged with residual "Ethernet packages" and so had to be discarded immediately before they started to rot and attract "data worms".
I have since done away with Ethernet all together and am finding I can get alot more done with only Internet (much faster, no data worms).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806587</id>
	<title>Re:Patent duration</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1256047440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whats more of an important note, and I'm surprised not one poster above noted this, all of the companies using this tech today DID licence (or sub lisence) the technology from 3Com originally!</p><p>They're suing someone for LEGAL use of a patent?  Are they assuming that license agreements between 3Com and others expired somehow and were not renewed, or that the sale of the license voided those agreements?</p><p>Also of note, the US government does have the power (I understand) to revoke patents found to be particularly important to the US infrastrucutre, the government can use anything patented without license fees paid (though they do have some paperwork and technically the do "license" the technology), and they can pass that power to any manufacturer who makes parts/systems for the government.  If push came to shove, the government could either authorize Cisco, Intel, HP and others to continue to make parts in leiu of the patent in order to maintain the stability of the internet itself, including home and school connections and VoIP services deemed necessary for the public health/comminucation/education/etc, or they could simply revoke the patent outright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats more of an important note , and I 'm surprised not one poster above noted this , all of the companies using this tech today DID licence ( or sub lisence ) the technology from 3Com originally ! They 're suing someone for LEGAL use of a patent ?
Are they assuming that license agreements between 3Com and others expired somehow and were not renewed , or that the sale of the license voided those agreements ? Also of note , the US government does have the power ( I understand ) to revoke patents found to be particularly important to the US infrastrucutre , the government can use anything patented without license fees paid ( though they do have some paperwork and technically the do " license " the technology ) , and they can pass that power to any manufacturer who makes parts/systems for the government .
If push came to shove , the government could either authorize Cisco , Intel , HP and others to continue to make parts in leiu of the patent in order to maintain the stability of the internet itself , including home and school connections and VoIP services deemed necessary for the public health/comminucation/education/etc , or they could simply revoke the patent outright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats more of an important note, and I'm surprised not one poster above noted this, all of the companies using this tech today DID licence (or sub lisence) the technology from 3Com originally!They're suing someone for LEGAL use of a patent?
Are they assuming that license agreements between 3Com and others expired somehow and were not renewed, or that the sale of the license voided those agreements?Also of note, the US government does have the power (I understand) to revoke patents found to be particularly important to the US infrastrucutre, the government can use anything patented without license fees paid (though they do have some paperwork and technically the do "license" the technology), and they can pass that power to any manufacturer who makes parts/systems for the government.
If push came to shove, the government could either authorize Cisco, Intel, HP and others to continue to make parts in leiu of the patent in order to maintain the stability of the internet itself, including home and school connections and VoIP services deemed necessary for the public health/comminucation/education/etc, or they could simply revoke the patent outright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659</id>
	<title>Damn!</title>
	<author>willoughby</author>
	<datestamp>1255981680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I suppose it's back to those pain-in-the-ass coaxial cables.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I suppose it 's back to those pain-in-the-ass coaxial cables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I suppose it's back to those pain-in-the-ass coaxial cables.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805867</id>
	<title>Too Early In The Morning Syndrome</title>
	<author>DJCouchyCouch</author>
	<datestamp>1256041440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read that as</p><p>"Apple, Others Hit With Lawsuit On Ethernet Pants"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that as " Apple , Others Hit With Lawsuit On Ethernet Pants "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that as"Apple, Others Hit With Lawsuit On Ethernet Pants"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804799</id>
	<title>www.usethernetinnovations.com</title>
	<author>cjfs</author>
	<datestamp>1256069640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else read that as Use Their Net Innovations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else read that as Use Their Net Innovations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else read that as Use Their Net Innovations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581</id>
	<title>New Networking Technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255980480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Token ring, here we come</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Token ring , here we come</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Token ring, here we come</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29815405</id>
	<title>Anybody got a DEC peripheral handbook</title>
	<author>IT Hippy</author>
	<datestamp>1256036340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct me if I am wrong but I think we had all this DMA stuff in the DQ-11 back in 1979 running on the PDP-11.

It wasn't ethernet it used DMA in host memory to decode bisync network packets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I am wrong but I think we had all this DMA stuff in the DQ-11 back in 1979 running on the PDP-11 .
It was n't ethernet it used DMA in host memory to decode bisync network packets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I am wrong but I think we had all this DMA stuff in the DQ-11 back in 1979 running on the PDP-11.
It wasn't ethernet it used DMA in host memory to decode bisync network packets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804671</id>
	<title>Re:Um, three guesses won't be needed</title>
	<author>mrmike37</author>
	<datestamp>1255981920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless it's patent litigation between states<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless it 's patent litigation between states : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless it's patent litigation between states :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805403</id>
	<title>Re:New Networking Technology</title>
	<author>MacroRodent</author>
	<datestamp>1256035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>whether there is prior art in the way IBM mainframes handle I/O</i>
<p>
Hmm, noticed that IBM is not in the list of defendants. The patent trolls don't want to wake up the IBM legal Nazgul, after what happened to SCO...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whether there is prior art in the way IBM mainframes handle I/O Hmm , noticed that IBM is not in the list of defendants .
The patent trolls do n't want to wake up the IBM legal Nazgul , after what happened to SCO.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whether there is prior art in the way IBM mainframes handle I/O

Hmm, noticed that IBM is not in the list of defendants.
The patent trolls don't want to wake up the IBM legal Nazgul, after what happened to SCO...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805339</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256034300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are suing Apple. How many Apple fans are out there these days? 1 in 12?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are suing Apple .
How many Apple fans are out there these days ?
1 in 12 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are suing Apple.
How many Apple fans are out there these days?
1 in 12?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806161</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>maharb</author>
	<datestamp>1256044680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The coke machines around here have credit card swipers which means they must be networked.  Add another company to the list please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The coke machines around here have credit card swipers which means they must be networked .
Add another company to the list please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The coke machines around here have credit card swipers which means they must be networked.
Add another company to the list please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805679</id>
	<title>Estoppel anyone?</title>
	<author>CODiNE</author>
	<datestamp>1256039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has been brought up before in the past when similar actions came up.  My question is, does estoppel even exist anymore?  Or is it an archaic somewhat quaint idea that only a naive person would expect to be honored? It seems these days submarine patents and the like are the norm and this simple legal concept should stop such things in their tracks. It's obviously the new business plan, sit on a patent for 10 or 20 years til everyone is using it, then all the sudden start suing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been brought up before in the past when similar actions came up .
My question is , does estoppel even exist anymore ?
Or is it an archaic somewhat quaint idea that only a naive person would expect to be honored ?
It seems these days submarine patents and the like are the norm and this simple legal concept should stop such things in their tracks .
It 's obviously the new business plan , sit on a patent for 10 or 20 years til everyone is using it , then all the sudden start suing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been brought up before in the past when similar actions came up.
My question is, does estoppel even exist anymore?
Or is it an archaic somewhat quaint idea that only a naive person would expect to be honored?
It seems these days submarine patents and the like are the norm and this simple legal concept should stop such things in their tracks.
It's obviously the new business plan, sit on a patent for 10 or 20 years til everyone is using it, then all the sudden start suing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805151</id>
	<title>Re:brilliant patent!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256031360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>congrats, you have successfully deciphered the first claim of the patent, what about the other 28?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>congrats , you have successfully deciphered the first claim of the patent , what about the other 28 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>congrats, you have successfully deciphered the first claim of the patent, what about the other 28?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806297</id>
	<title>There's a word for that</title>
	<author>Chris.Nelson</author>
	<datestamp>1256045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was excited recently (OK, I'm a language geek) to learn that there's a "real" word for patent trolling: champerty (http://wordsmith.org/words/champerty.html)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was excited recently ( OK , I 'm a language geek ) to learn that there 's a " real " word for patent trolling : champerty ( http : //wordsmith.org/words/champerty.html )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was excited recently (OK, I'm a language geek) to learn that there's a "real" word for patent trolling: champerty (http://wordsmith.org/words/champerty.html)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807569</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>steveo777</author>
	<datestamp>1256051760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think this is much of a troll.  The legal system can, and periodically is, turned into a popularity contest.  There is a very real likelihood that the jurors will act on personal feelings about the company, and/or be swayed because of lawyer speak.</p><p>However, it is also possible that the jurors will be fair and impartial.  But from what we now know about that district, there really isn't any hope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this is much of a troll .
The legal system can , and periodically is , turned into a popularity contest .
There is a very real likelihood that the jurors will act on personal feelings about the company , and/or be swayed because of lawyer speak.However , it is also possible that the jurors will be fair and impartial .
But from what we now know about that district , there really is n't any hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this is much of a troll.
The legal system can, and periodically is, turned into a popularity contest.
There is a very real likelihood that the jurors will act on personal feelings about the company, and/or be swayed because of lawyer speak.However, it is also possible that the jurors will be fair and impartial.
But from what we now know about that district, there really isn't any hope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806073</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256043720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No need to look far. In Atlanta just outside the World of Coke, we have coke machines that take credit/debit cards....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No need to look far .
In Atlanta just outside the World of Coke , we have coke machines that take credit/debit cards... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No need to look far.
In Atlanta just outside the World of Coke, we have coke machines that take credit/debit cards....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805533</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>ezzzD55J</author>
	<datestamp>1256036880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that all these companies have set themselves up as fall guys</p></div><p>Nitpick: that's not what a fall guy is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that all these companies have set themselves up as fall guysNitpick : that 's not what a fall guy is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that all these companies have set themselves up as fall guysNitpick: that's not what a fall guy is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29814439</id>
	<title>Re:Damn!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256032800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, but they sure could get long!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , but they sure could get long !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, but they sure could get long!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804887</id>
	<title>Re:Um, three guesses won't be needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256070780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here comes the GNU/Ubuntu,  here comes the GNU/Ubuntu<br>Watch him walk this way, watch him walk that way<br>There goes the GNU/Ubuntu, there goes the GNU/Ubuntu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here comes the GNU/Ubuntu , here comes the GNU/UbuntuWatch him walk this way , watch him walk that wayThere goes the GNU/Ubuntu , there goes the GNU/Ubuntu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here comes the GNU/Ubuntu,  here comes the GNU/UbuntuWatch him walk this way, watch him walk that wayThere goes the GNU/Ubuntu, there goes the GNU/Ubuntu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807537</id>
	<title>Why are these companies/organizations suing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256051640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the end users of pre-designed/manufactured dropin chipsets providing this functionality?  Apple certainly doesn't develop their own ethernet cards any longer, they just pickup a pre-designed chipset from some OEM and plop it down in their design.  So, it would seem to me that companies like Apple are perfectly in the clear and it would be the chipset OEMs that are at risk.</p><p>Of course the same could be said for the recent WiFi patent disputes, very few of those companies sued or coerced into licensing actually produce their own chipsets, so why would they need the license?  Only the OEM should need the license if they even really need one at all...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the end users of pre-designed/manufactured dropin chipsets providing this functionality ?
Apple certainly does n't develop their own ethernet cards any longer , they just pickup a pre-designed chipset from some OEM and plop it down in their design .
So , it would seem to me that companies like Apple are perfectly in the clear and it would be the chipset OEMs that are at risk.Of course the same could be said for the recent WiFi patent disputes , very few of those companies sued or coerced into licensing actually produce their own chipsets , so why would they need the license ?
Only the OEM should need the license if they even really need one at all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the end users of pre-designed/manufactured dropin chipsets providing this functionality?
Apple certainly doesn't develop their own ethernet cards any longer, they just pickup a pre-designed chipset from some OEM and plop it down in their design.
So, it would seem to me that companies like Apple are perfectly in the clear and it would be the chipset OEMs that are at risk.Of course the same could be said for the recent WiFi patent disputes, very few of those companies sued or coerced into licensing actually produce their own chipsets, so why would they need the license?
Only the OEM should need the license if they even really need one at all...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805669</id>
	<title>Boy; I tell you what ..</title>
	<author>h.ross.perot</author>
	<datestamp>1256038980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That fella is givin Texas a bad name..</htmltext>
<tokenext>That fella is givin Texas a bad name. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That fella is givin Texas a bad name..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807135</id>
	<title>Re:Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1256049960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Trolls aren't very bright</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trolls are n't very bright</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trolls aren't very bright</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805727</id>
	<title>Re:PC makers and not chipset vendors?</title>
	<author>Peter Simpson</author>
	<datestamp>1256039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My understanding about the licensing of patents like these, is that the chip manufacturer needs to have paid for the necessary licenses before making the chips.  He sells subsidiary licenses with the chips (they're included in the cost of the parts), otherwise, no one would buy his parts.  The patent holder usually goes after the chip manufacturer if there's a licensing issue.</p><p>This has always been the way licensing has worked in the industry.  I suspect this troll doesn't understand that.  Unless there's a problem with a specific Asian manufacturer not being fully licensed...and all of those being sued use their parts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding about the licensing of patents like these , is that the chip manufacturer needs to have paid for the necessary licenses before making the chips .
He sells subsidiary licenses with the chips ( they 're included in the cost of the parts ) , otherwise , no one would buy his parts .
The patent holder usually goes after the chip manufacturer if there 's a licensing issue.This has always been the way licensing has worked in the industry .
I suspect this troll does n't understand that .
Unless there 's a problem with a specific Asian manufacturer not being fully licensed...and all of those being sued use their parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding about the licensing of patents like these, is that the chip manufacturer needs to have paid for the necessary licenses before making the chips.
He sells subsidiary licenses with the chips (they're included in the cost of the parts), otherwise, no one would buy his parts.
The patent holder usually goes after the chip manufacturer if there's a licensing issue.This has always been the way licensing has worked in the industry.
I suspect this troll doesn't understand that.
Unless there's a problem with a specific Asian manufacturer not being fully licensed...and all of those being sued use their parts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806753</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are also suing Dell. How many Texans know somebody working for Dell?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are also suing Dell .
How many Texans know somebody working for Dell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are also suing Dell.
How many Texans know somebody working for Dell?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808061</id>
	<title>Re:Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256053680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most likely a cross-licensing agreement protects Cisco, probably from some time before the troll was created.  Most companies with larger patent portfolios end up cross-licensing to immunize themselves from each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most likely a cross-licensing agreement protects Cisco , probably from some time before the troll was created .
Most companies with larger patent portfolios end up cross-licensing to immunize themselves from each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most likely a cross-licensing agreement protects Cisco, probably from some time before the troll was created.
Most companies with larger patent portfolios end up cross-licensing to immunize themselves from each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806007</id>
	<title>Re:brilliant patent!</title>
	<author>brxndxn</author>
	<datestamp>1256042880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya.. well I thought of the idea of 'putting chips on a multilayer card-like substrate.' If I never would've thought of this, imagine where we'd be!! We wouldn't have computers or anything!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya.. well I thought of the idea of 'putting chips on a multilayer card-like substrate .
' If I never would 've thought of this , imagine where we 'd be ! !
We would n't have computers or anything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya.. well I thought of the idea of 'putting chips on a multilayer card-like substrate.
' If I never would've thought of this, imagine where we'd be!!
We wouldn't have computers or anything!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805207</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with patents is being able to sell them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256032500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are valid uses for patents that are not held by a manufacturing firm.</p><p>For one thing, the person inventing a new device may not have the capability or desire to manufacture it -- should they not be allowed to procure and then sell or license a patent to protect and profit from their design.</p><p>Or consider patents held by a licensing group; two or more industry players hold patents that would work well together -- say for two different but compatible methods of improving motor efficiency. They might want to form an independent business that owns both patents and provides licensing to the entire industry but does not in itself make motors, so as to avoid being be competitor either to the original companies or the rest of the industry. This is a fairly common scenario for everything from compressors to DVD players, and while in some instances you could form a joint venture or simply provide cross-licensing, there are other situations where an independent, non-competing licensing consortium is the best option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are valid uses for patents that are not held by a manufacturing firm.For one thing , the person inventing a new device may not have the capability or desire to manufacture it -- should they not be allowed to procure and then sell or license a patent to protect and profit from their design.Or consider patents held by a licensing group ; two or more industry players hold patents that would work well together -- say for two different but compatible methods of improving motor efficiency .
They might want to form an independent business that owns both patents and provides licensing to the entire industry but does not in itself make motors , so as to avoid being be competitor either to the original companies or the rest of the industry .
This is a fairly common scenario for everything from compressors to DVD players , and while in some instances you could form a joint venture or simply provide cross-licensing , there are other situations where an independent , non-competing licensing consortium is the best option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are valid uses for patents that are not held by a manufacturing firm.For one thing, the person inventing a new device may not have the capability or desire to manufacture it -- should they not be allowed to procure and then sell or license a patent to protect and profit from their design.Or consider patents held by a licensing group; two or more industry players hold patents that would work well together -- say for two different but compatible methods of improving motor efficiency.
They might want to form an independent business that owns both patents and provides licensing to the entire industry but does not in itself make motors, so as to avoid being be competitor either to the original companies or the rest of the industry.
This is a fairly common scenario for everything from compressors to DVD players, and while in some instances you could form a joint venture or simply provide cross-licensing, there are other situations where an independent, non-competing licensing consortium is the best option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811277</id>
	<title>On the bright side...</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1256064240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...It's good to see Darryl McBride found a new job so quickly, isn't it? Who says the job market is down...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...It 's good to see Darryl McBride found a new job so quickly , is n't it ?
Who says the job market is down.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...It's good to see Darryl McBride found a new job so quickly, isn't it?
Who says the job market is down...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805347</id>
	<title>Re:Damn!</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1256034360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was proper Ethernet then, with real collisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was proper Ethernet then , with real collisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was proper Ethernet then, with real collisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805065</id>
	<title>Re:Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>kiwirob</author>
	<datestamp>1256030340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple has some of the deepest pockets around. currently $34,000,000,000 in cash (yes that's 34 billion). <br>
<a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/167404-apple-f4q09-qtr-end-9-26-09-earnings-call-transcript?page=3" title="seekingalpha.com" rel="nofollow">Apple latest financial results</a> [seekingalpha.com] <br>
<i>Turning to cash, our cash plus short-term and long-term marketable securities totaled $34 billion at the end of the September quarter compared to $31.1 billion at the end of the June quarter, an increase of $2.9 billion. </i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has some of the deepest pockets around .
currently $ 34,000,000,000 in cash ( yes that 's 34 billion ) .
Apple latest financial results [ seekingalpha.com ] Turning to cash , our cash plus short-term and long-term marketable securities totaled $ 34 billion at the end of the September quarter compared to $ 31.1 billion at the end of the June quarter , an increase of $ 2.9 billion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has some of the deepest pockets around.
currently $34,000,000,000 in cash (yes that's 34 billion).
Apple latest financial results [seekingalpha.com] 
Turning to cash, our cash plus short-term and long-term marketable securities totaled $34 billion at the end of the September quarter compared to $31.1 billion at the end of the June quarter, an increase of $2.9 billion. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808523</id>
	<title>Re:New Networking Technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256055360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, IBM offloaded network management to Front End Processors (FEP) that generated interrupts to talk to the host when they had data to be consumed. The Host then used Channel Control Protocol programs to read the data from the FEP.</p><p>VTAM 4 Ever!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , IBM offloaded network management to Front End Processors ( FEP ) that generated interrupts to talk to the host when they had data to be consumed .
The Host then used Channel Control Protocol programs to read the data from the FEP.VTAM 4 Ever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, IBM offloaded network management to Front End Processors (FEP) that generated interrupts to talk to the host when they had data to be consumed.
The Host then used Channel Control Protocol programs to read the data from the FEP.VTAM 4 Ever!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29809101</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>eison</author>
	<datestamp>1256057160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The newest coke machines, "Coke Freestyle", are networked with cell phones to report usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The newest coke machines , " Coke Freestyle " , are networked with cell phones to report usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The newest coke machines, "Coke Freestyle", are networked with cell phones to report usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805069</id>
	<title>Re:I before E except after C</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256030400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nor, indeed,  master the use of an ampersand to concatenate ``Apple'' and `others''.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nor , indeed , master the use of an ampersand to concatenate ` ` Apple' ' and ` others'' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nor, indeed,  master the use of an ampersand to concatenate ``Apple'' and `others''.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805373</id>
	<title>There's more to fix..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256034720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, so everyone who appreciates their privacy has left or is leaving.<br>Those who don't like paying US tax when they're not even living there are changing citizenship.<br>Any non-US company running anything in finance is closing shop (thus reducing available capital to lend).<br>Anyone using the US Dollar is slowly reducing their exposure as there is credible evidence both reserve currency as well as energy trading currency may not be the US dollar for that much longer - all that holds that one up is foreign ownership which is gradually being reduced too (tick tock tick tock).<br>Every entrepreneur who wants to set up shop avoids the US as well as it's likely that even breathing can be patented and litigated.  Sure, you can fight it in court, but why not avoid the problem (and costs) altogether by not having a US business?</p><p>The last one out doesn't need to bother switching off the light - it's already dimming now..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so everyone who appreciates their privacy has left or is leaving.Those who do n't like paying US tax when they 're not even living there are changing citizenship.Any non-US company running anything in finance is closing shop ( thus reducing available capital to lend ) .Anyone using the US Dollar is slowly reducing their exposure as there is credible evidence both reserve currency as well as energy trading currency may not be the US dollar for that much longer - all that holds that one up is foreign ownership which is gradually being reduced too ( tick tock tick tock ) .Every entrepreneur who wants to set up shop avoids the US as well as it 's likely that even breathing can be patented and litigated .
Sure , you can fight it in court , but why not avoid the problem ( and costs ) altogether by not having a US business ? The last one out does n't need to bother switching off the light - it 's already dimming now. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so everyone who appreciates their privacy has left or is leaving.Those who don't like paying US tax when they're not even living there are changing citizenship.Any non-US company running anything in finance is closing shop (thus reducing available capital to lend).Anyone using the US Dollar is slowly reducing their exposure as there is credible evidence both reserve currency as well as energy trading currency may not be the US dollar for that much longer - all that holds that one up is foreign ownership which is gradually being reduced too (tick tock tick tock).Every entrepreneur who wants to set up shop avoids the US as well as it's likely that even breathing can be patented and litigated.
Sure, you can fight it in court, but why not avoid the problem (and costs) altogether by not having a US business?The last one out doesn't need to bother switching off the light - it's already dimming now..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805519</id>
	<title>Too early in the morning for a longer version...</title>
	<author>macinit</author>
	<datestamp>1256036640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3COM's playing the "May fortune favor the foolish" strategy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3COM 's playing the " May fortune favor the foolish " strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3COM's playing the "May fortune favor the foolish" strategy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805677</id>
	<title>Re:Damn!</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1256039100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and we have to teach people all over again how to use a tee-connector and by no means plug the end of a cable directly into the card and take down all the network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and we have to teach people all over again how to use a tee-connector and by no means plug the end of a cable directly into the card and take down all the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and we have to teach people all over again how to use a tee-connector and by no means plug the end of a cable directly into the card and take down all the network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804599</id>
	<title>Um, three guesses won't be needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255980660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Three guesses which US Appeals Court the lawsuit was filed in.</p> </div><p>None!  You cannot originate a patent infringement suit in a United States Court of Appeals, any more than you can file in the Supreme Court.  Instead, patent litigation must start at a United States District Court.  The losing party may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Three guesses which US Appeals Court the lawsuit was filed in .
None ! You can not originate a patent infringement suit in a United States Court of Appeals , any more than you can file in the Supreme Court .
Instead , patent litigation must start at a United States District Court .
The losing party may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three guesses which US Appeals Court the lawsuit was filed in.
None!  You cannot originate a patent infringement suit in a United States Court of Appeals, any more than you can file in the Supreme Court.
Instead, patent litigation must start at a United States District Court.
The losing party may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804689</id>
	<title>Re:hardly relevant now...</title>
	<author>davester666</author>
	<datestamp>1255982160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, I hope there isn't a submarine patent on information flowing through a series of tubes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , I hope there is n't a submarine patent on information flowing through a series of tubes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, I hope there isn't a submarine patent on information flowing through a series of tubes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29819893</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256065080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing they haven't thought to google it, then...</p><p>http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Vending-machines-and-printers-open-network-threat/0,130061744,139257198,00.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing they have n't thought to google it , then...http : //www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Vending-machines-and-printers-open-network-threat/0,130061744,139257198,00.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing they haven't thought to google it, then...http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Vending-machines-and-printers-open-network-threat/0,130061744,139257198,00.htm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805667</id>
	<title>Re:New Networking Technology</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1256038920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, still got some of these massive cables with these humongous plugs on them... will put on ebay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , still got some of these massive cables with these humongous plugs on them... will put on ebay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, still got some of these massive cables with these humongous plugs on them... will put on ebay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807291</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with patents is being able to sell them</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1256050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm starting to think that one of the biggest problems with patents is being able to sell them and hold them with out making products based on them.</p></div></blockquote><p>Naaa, the biggest problems are pretty much the following:</p><p>1)There are no effective checks to stop people patenting obvious things or things that are not patentable. Combined with a complete lack of penalties (at least in practice ) for abusing the system and the expense involved with defending yourself against a lawsuit this allows patent trolls to cause a great deal of harm to companies and individuals who have done nothing wrong.</p><p>2)There is in practice a complete lack of punishment for deliberately filing invalid patents and patent claims.</p><p>3)Patent law is to a very large extent not based on any form of independent analysis of its consequences but rather the work of lobbying by special interest groups. In otehr words, patent law is designed to be profitable, not just.</p><p>4)Because patent law allows very vague and broad interpretations of patent claims, and because you can be found to be infringing even if you had never heard of a plaintiff's patent, it is in practice impossible to market ANY product without infringing on SOME patent.</p><p>5)Because large plaintiffs can essentially force smaller companies to settle by simply dragging a case along, the outcome of a lawsuit is often determined not by who is in the right, but who has the most money to spend on legal battles ( this is a more general problem with the US legal system ).</p><p>Or simply put: Due to intense lobbying by patent holders and existing monopolies the system is more or less designed to allow plaintiffs to abuse the system for purposes different from the original motivation of promoting arts and sciences. There is little justice or balance in the system and patent lawsuits mostly boil down to who has the deepest pockets rather than who is in the right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to think that one of the biggest problems with patents is being able to sell them and hold them with out making products based on them.Naaa , the biggest problems are pretty much the following : 1 ) There are no effective checks to stop people patenting obvious things or things that are not patentable .
Combined with a complete lack of penalties ( at least in practice ) for abusing the system and the expense involved with defending yourself against a lawsuit this allows patent trolls to cause a great deal of harm to companies and individuals who have done nothing wrong.2 ) There is in practice a complete lack of punishment for deliberately filing invalid patents and patent claims.3 ) Patent law is to a very large extent not based on any form of independent analysis of its consequences but rather the work of lobbying by special interest groups .
In otehr words , patent law is designed to be profitable , not just.4 ) Because patent law allows very vague and broad interpretations of patent claims , and because you can be found to be infringing even if you had never heard of a plaintiff 's patent , it is in practice impossible to market ANY product without infringing on SOME patent.5 ) Because large plaintiffs can essentially force smaller companies to settle by simply dragging a case along , the outcome of a lawsuit is often determined not by who is in the right , but who has the most money to spend on legal battles ( this is a more general problem with the US legal system ) .Or simply put : Due to intense lobbying by patent holders and existing monopolies the system is more or less designed to allow plaintiffs to abuse the system for purposes different from the original motivation of promoting arts and sciences .
There is little justice or balance in the system and patent lawsuits mostly boil down to who has the deepest pockets rather than who is in the right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting to think that one of the biggest problems with patents is being able to sell them and hold them with out making products based on them.Naaa, the biggest problems are pretty much the following:1)There are no effective checks to stop people patenting obvious things or things that are not patentable.
Combined with a complete lack of penalties (at least in practice ) for abusing the system and the expense involved with defending yourself against a lawsuit this allows patent trolls to cause a great deal of harm to companies and individuals who have done nothing wrong.2)There is in practice a complete lack of punishment for deliberately filing invalid patents and patent claims.3)Patent law is to a very large extent not based on any form of independent analysis of its consequences but rather the work of lobbying by special interest groups.
In otehr words, patent law is designed to be profitable, not just.4)Because patent law allows very vague and broad interpretations of patent claims, and because you can be found to be infringing even if you had never heard of a plaintiff's patent, it is in practice impossible to market ANY product without infringing on SOME patent.5)Because large plaintiffs can essentially force smaller companies to settle by simply dragging a case along, the outcome of a lawsuit is often determined not by who is in the right, but who has the most money to spend on legal battles ( this is a more general problem with the US legal system ).Or simply put: Due to intense lobbying by patent holders and existing monopolies the system is more or less designed to allow plaintiffs to abuse the system for purposes different from the original motivation of promoting arts and sciences.
There is little justice or balance in the system and patent lawsuits mostly boil down to who has the deepest pockets rather than who is in the right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805297</id>
	<title>Re:New Networking Technology</title>
	<author>Big Jojo</author>
	<datestamp>1256033640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't the AMD LANCE Ethernet controllers (including Am7990) do per-packet DMA into host memory, and ring buffers?  The Linux LANCE driver has a 1993 copyright, and I'm fairly sure the chip was earlier than that.  At the time, ISTR it was one of the few nicely designed Ethernet chips in existence.

</p><p>So if your quick scan is correct, then either AMD should have been sued back then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or there's this thing called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel" title="wikipedia.org">estoppel</a> [wikipedia.org] which really ought to block this suit.  Unless maybe AMD licensed the patent?  Though I also seem to recall that estoppel doesn't always apply in patent cases like it does elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't the AMD LANCE Ethernet controllers ( including Am7990 ) do per-packet DMA into host memory , and ring buffers ?
The Linux LANCE driver has a 1993 copyright , and I 'm fairly sure the chip was earlier than that .
At the time , ISTR it was one of the few nicely designed Ethernet chips in existence .
So if your quick scan is correct , then either AMD should have been sued back then ... or there 's this thing called estoppel [ wikipedia.org ] which really ought to block this suit .
Unless maybe AMD licensed the patent ?
Though I also seem to recall that estoppel does n't always apply in patent cases like it does elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't the AMD LANCE Ethernet controllers (including Am7990) do per-packet DMA into host memory, and ring buffers?
The Linux LANCE driver has a 1993 copyright, and I'm fairly sure the chip was earlier than that.
At the time, ISTR it was one of the few nicely designed Ethernet chips in existence.
So if your quick scan is correct, then either AMD should have been sued back then ... or there's this thing called estoppel [wikipedia.org] which really ought to block this suit.
Unless maybe AMD licensed the patent?
Though I also seem to recall that estoppel doesn't always apply in patent cases like it does elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804589</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255980540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here comes the GNU/Ubuntu, here comes the GNU/Ubuntu<br>Watch him walk this way, watch him walk that way<br>There goes the GNU/Ubuntu, there goes the GNU/Ubuntu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here comes the GNU/Ubuntu , here comes the GNU/UbuntuWatch him walk this way , watch him walk that wayThere goes the GNU/Ubuntu , there goes the GNU/Ubuntu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here comes the GNU/Ubuntu, here comes the GNU/UbuntuWatch him walk this way, watch him walk that wayThere goes the GNU/Ubuntu, there goes the GNU/Ubuntu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804641</id>
	<title>hardly relevant now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255981320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone uses the \_internet\_, now. Who cares about ethernet?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone uses the \ _internet \ _ , now .
Who cares about ethernet ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone uses the \_internet\_, now.
Who cares about ethernet?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29821369</id>
	<title>A big pit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256127240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The companies are major leaque international players with the financial, legal and political clout to kick back very hard. Also the Wikipedia entry for ethernet (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet) would indicate prior art and patenting. It says:- "Ethernet was originally developed at Xerox PARC in 1973&ndash;1975.[2] In 1975, Xerox filed a patent application listing Robert Metcalfe, David Boggs, Chuck Thacker and Butler Lampson as inventors (U.S. Patent 4,063,220: Multipoint data communication system (with collision detection)). In 1976, after the system was deployed at PARC, Metcalfe and Boggs published a seminal paper.[3]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The companies are major leaque international players with the financial , legal and political clout to kick back very hard .
Also the Wikipedia entry for ethernet ( at http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet ) would indicate prior art and patenting .
It says : - " Ethernet was originally developed at Xerox PARC in 1973    1975 .
[ 2 ] In 1975 , Xerox filed a patent application listing Robert Metcalfe , David Boggs , Chuck Thacker and Butler Lampson as inventors ( U.S. Patent 4,063,220 : Multipoint data communication system ( with collision detection ) ) .
In 1976 , after the system was deployed at PARC , Metcalfe and Boggs published a seminal paper .
[ 3 ] ... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The companies are major leaque international players with the financial, legal and political clout to kick back very hard.
Also the Wikipedia entry for ethernet (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet) would indicate prior art and patenting.
It says:- "Ethernet was originally developed at Xerox PARC in 1973–1975.
[2] In 1975, Xerox filed a patent application listing Robert Metcalfe, David Boggs, Chuck Thacker and Butler Lampson as inventors (U.S. Patent 4,063,220: Multipoint data communication system (with collision detection)).
In 1976, after the system was deployed at PARC, Metcalfe and Boggs published a seminal paper.
[3] ... "</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808013</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256053560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Because those companies have money and make some indirect use of the technology. <b>They'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine.</b></p></div></blockquote><p>Some coke machines are networked.</p><p><a href="http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~bsy/coke.html" title="ucsd.edu" rel="nofollow">http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~bsy/coke.html</a> [ucsd.edu]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because those companies have money and make some indirect use of the technology .
They 'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine.Some coke machines are networked.http : //cseweb.ucsd.edu/ ~ bsy/coke.html [ ucsd.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because those companies have money and make some indirect use of the technology.
They'd probably sue Coke if they could find a networked vending machine.Some coke machines are networked.http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~bsy/coke.html [ucsd.edu]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806709</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256048160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shhh....</p><p>I've got the networked Coke machine in the lobby serving up pr0n and warez.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shhh....I 've got the networked Coke machine in the lobby serving up pr0n and warez .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shhh....I've got the networked Coke machine in the lobby serving up pr0n and warez.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805505</id>
	<title>Re:Patent duration</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1256036460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It varies by type, but the standard appears to be 20 years. This patent was filed in 1990.</p></div><p>US patents used to last 17 years from date GRANTED, and were kept secret until granted. The company requesting the patent could deliberately delay the process of getting it granted for years, so that it remained secret and was valid until later (when the market for the covered "invention" is expetcted to be bigger). With the current system, there is less secrecy and patents are valid for 20 years from date of filing. I checked one of the 4 patents in the article. It was filed in 1992 and granted in 1994, so it should be valid until 1994+17=2011. Still quite a while to go without ethernet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It varies by type , but the standard appears to be 20 years .
This patent was filed in 1990.US patents used to last 17 years from date GRANTED , and were kept secret until granted .
The company requesting the patent could deliberately delay the process of getting it granted for years , so that it remained secret and was valid until later ( when the market for the covered " invention " is expetcted to be bigger ) .
With the current system , there is less secrecy and patents are valid for 20 years from date of filing .
I checked one of the 4 patents in the article .
It was filed in 1992 and granted in 1994 , so it should be valid until 1994 + 17 = 2011 .
Still quite a while to go without ethernet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It varies by type, but the standard appears to be 20 years.
This patent was filed in 1990.US patents used to last 17 years from date GRANTED, and were kept secret until granted.
The company requesting the patent could deliberately delay the process of getting it granted for years, so that it remained secret and was valid until later (when the market for the covered "invention" is expetcted to be bigger).
With the current system, there is less secrecy and patents are valid for 20 years from date of filing.
I checked one of the 4 patents in the article.
It was filed in 1992 and granted in 1994, so it should be valid until 1994+17=2011.
Still quite a while to go without ethernet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807763</id>
	<title>Re:hardly relevant now...</title>
	<author>Abstrackt</author>
	<datestamp>1256052480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone uses the \_internet\_, now. Who cares about ethernet?!</p></div><p>Anyone trying to catch the Ether Bunny cares!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone uses the \ _internet \ _ , now .
Who cares about ethernet ?
! Anyone trying to catch the Ether Bunny cares !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone uses the \_internet\_, now.
Who cares about ethernet?
!Anyone trying to catch the Ether Bunny cares!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811087</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>tiqui</author>
	<datestamp>1256063760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>A jury in East Texas will be composed of at least 10 people who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode to work on a brontosaurus.</i> </p><p>Well, I see the hate-speech and bigotry against Christians is on display again. This is one of the easiest attacks to make, because Christians do not kill people who draw cartoons.</p><p>I personally do not believe in the concept of "hate speech", being a supporter of free speech, but I am always impressed by its use by the left who seem so obsessed with it. </p><p>Nobody claims that Jesus rode a dinosaur. Indeed, while there are a few who think that dinos and humans may have coexisted, I have encountered an atheist who had that particular belief and there are probably a few more like him, so I guess it would be okay to say that Darwin ran a T-rex ranch. It is also true that SOME Christians believe in a "young Earth", many believe in an "old Earth". Of those who DO believe in a "young Earth", most believe the system was created with an apparent age and everything functioning (fully grown plants and animals, the light photons from stars already in transit, geologic layers, fossils, etc.) You may certainly reject their argument, but if it is true then there is simply never going to be a way to prove or disprove it. If they are correct, then they are not as nutty as you imply and indeed their confused critics are the presumably gullible ones who should be feared on a jury.</p><p>Since neither science nor religion will ever truly solve that question, I prefer that we all settle for the jury qualifications our founders gave us: a group of one's peers (in the traditional sense of the word) who are mentally sound (though perhaps not philosophically sound, or well acquainted with the issues). The results are not always great, but they are as fair as we can get. If the people who understand technology-related issues are unhappy with the results produced by their fellow citizens on juries, then they should look in the mirror and ask themselves the following question: what could I do better to help my friends and neighbors better understand these issues? If the lawyers on the side of the issues we support are losing, then we should ask ourselves and them to think about why they are failing so badly in the task of explaining their cases to the juries. No jury can be expected to know all about the subject of a court case; our system of justice relies upon competent advocates providing good information to juries, which is one of the reasons we have lawyers in the court. </p><p>Before the United States was founded, one of its founders, John Adams, took the case of some British soldiers who had shot some American colonists before a jury of American colonials. Every one of the colonials on that jury, if asked, would likely have been a "young Earth" type of Christian (and not even the type who believe in an apparent age) who you would have denounced as a fool and they likely all had reasons to hate the British soldiers... but Adams won the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A jury in East Texas will be composed of at least 10 people who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode to work on a brontosaurus .
Well , I see the hate-speech and bigotry against Christians is on display again .
This is one of the easiest attacks to make , because Christians do not kill people who draw cartoons.I personally do not believe in the concept of " hate speech " , being a supporter of free speech , but I am always impressed by its use by the left who seem so obsessed with it .
Nobody claims that Jesus rode a dinosaur .
Indeed , while there are a few who think that dinos and humans may have coexisted , I have encountered an atheist who had that particular belief and there are probably a few more like him , so I guess it would be okay to say that Darwin ran a T-rex ranch .
It is also true that SOME Christians believe in a " young Earth " , many believe in an " old Earth " .
Of those who DO believe in a " young Earth " , most believe the system was created with an apparent age and everything functioning ( fully grown plants and animals , the light photons from stars already in transit , geologic layers , fossils , etc .
) You may certainly reject their argument , but if it is true then there is simply never going to be a way to prove or disprove it .
If they are correct , then they are not as nutty as you imply and indeed their confused critics are the presumably gullible ones who should be feared on a jury.Since neither science nor religion will ever truly solve that question , I prefer that we all settle for the jury qualifications our founders gave us : a group of one 's peers ( in the traditional sense of the word ) who are mentally sound ( though perhaps not philosophically sound , or well acquainted with the issues ) .
The results are not always great , but they are as fair as we can get .
If the people who understand technology-related issues are unhappy with the results produced by their fellow citizens on juries , then they should look in the mirror and ask themselves the following question : what could I do better to help my friends and neighbors better understand these issues ?
If the lawyers on the side of the issues we support are losing , then we should ask ourselves and them to think about why they are failing so badly in the task of explaining their cases to the juries .
No jury can be expected to know all about the subject of a court case ; our system of justice relies upon competent advocates providing good information to juries , which is one of the reasons we have lawyers in the court .
Before the United States was founded , one of its founders , John Adams , took the case of some British soldiers who had shot some American colonists before a jury of American colonials .
Every one of the colonials on that jury , if asked , would likely have been a " young Earth " type of Christian ( and not even the type who believe in an apparent age ) who you would have denounced as a fool and they likely all had reasons to hate the British soldiers... but Adams won the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A jury in East Texas will be composed of at least 10 people who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode to work on a brontosaurus.
Well, I see the hate-speech and bigotry against Christians is on display again.
This is one of the easiest attacks to make, because Christians do not kill people who draw cartoons.I personally do not believe in the concept of "hate speech", being a supporter of free speech, but I am always impressed by its use by the left who seem so obsessed with it.
Nobody claims that Jesus rode a dinosaur.
Indeed, while there are a few who think that dinos and humans may have coexisted, I have encountered an atheist who had that particular belief and there are probably a few more like him, so I guess it would be okay to say that Darwin ran a T-rex ranch.
It is also true that SOME Christians believe in a "young Earth", many believe in an "old Earth".
Of those who DO believe in a "young Earth", most believe the system was created with an apparent age and everything functioning (fully grown plants and animals, the light photons from stars already in transit, geologic layers, fossils, etc.
) You may certainly reject their argument, but if it is true then there is simply never going to be a way to prove or disprove it.
If they are correct, then they are not as nutty as you imply and indeed their confused critics are the presumably gullible ones who should be feared on a jury.Since neither science nor religion will ever truly solve that question, I prefer that we all settle for the jury qualifications our founders gave us: a group of one's peers (in the traditional sense of the word) who are mentally sound (though perhaps not philosophically sound, or well acquainted with the issues).
The results are not always great, but they are as fair as we can get.
If the people who understand technology-related issues are unhappy with the results produced by their fellow citizens on juries, then they should look in the mirror and ask themselves the following question: what could I do better to help my friends and neighbors better understand these issues?
If the lawyers on the side of the issues we support are losing, then we should ask ourselves and them to think about why they are failing so badly in the task of explaining their cases to the juries.
No jury can be expected to know all about the subject of a court case; our system of justice relies upon competent advocates providing good information to juries, which is one of the reasons we have lawyers in the court.
Before the United States was founded, one of its founders, John Adams, took the case of some British soldiers who had shot some American colonists before a jury of American colonials.
Every one of the colonials on that jury, if asked, would likely have been a "young Earth" type of Christian (and not even the type who believe in an apparent age) who you would have denounced as a fool and they likely all had reasons to hate the British soldiers... but Adams won the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806671</id>
	<title>Re:I before E except after C</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256047920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazing that Slashdot still can't master the technology of the "spellcheck", which I had in WordStar in 1987.</p></div><p>So you're saying you have prior art?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing that Slashdot still ca n't master the technology of the " spellcheck " , which I had in WordStar in 1987.So you 're saying you have prior art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing that Slashdot still can't master the technology of the "spellcheck", which I had in WordStar in 1987.So you're saying you have prior art?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807215</id>
	<title>Re:I before E except after C</title>
	<author>standbypowerguy</author>
	<datestamp>1256050260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps it's the Slashdotters, not Slashdot itself, that should be providing the spell check. The number of otherwise smart people I see that haven't mastered spelling is simply astounding. Perhaps if we promoted teachers based on merit instead of seniority...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it 's the Slashdotters , not Slashdot itself , that should be providing the spell check .
The number of otherwise smart people I see that have n't mastered spelling is simply astounding .
Perhaps if we promoted teachers based on merit instead of seniority.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it's the Slashdotters, not Slashdot itself, that should be providing the spell check.
The number of otherwise smart people I see that haven't mastered spelling is simply astounding.
Perhaps if we promoted teachers based on merit instead of seniority...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804835</id>
	<title>PC makers and not chipset vendors?</title>
	<author>E-Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1256070060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming that the article's list of defendants is complete, it's interesting that this troll is going after companies which make finished systems, and not the companies which make the actual ethernet chipsets and MACs that go into those systems (Broadcom, Marvel, Intel, RealTek, etc)</p><p>One would think that those would be the source of any patent infringements (real or imagined) when talking about ethernet itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming that the article 's list of defendants is complete , it 's interesting that this troll is going after companies which make finished systems , and not the companies which make the actual ethernet chipsets and MACs that go into those systems ( Broadcom , Marvel , Intel , RealTek , etc ) One would think that those would be the source of any patent infringements ( real or imagined ) when talking about ethernet itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming that the article's list of defendants is complete, it's interesting that this troll is going after companies which make finished systems, and not the companies which make the actual ethernet chipsets and MACs that go into those systems (Broadcom, Marvel, Intel, RealTek, etc)One would think that those would be the source of any patent infringements (real or imagined) when talking about ethernet itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804785</id>
	<title>Wrong Parties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably because they're idiots and don't really know what "patents" are or Ethernet for that matter. I could understand Broadcom and Intel getting sued, but like you say PC "producers" barely produce the parts they use! I wonder if it will get thrown out of court quickly or really quickly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably because they 're idiots and do n't really know what " patents " are or Ethernet for that matter .
I could understand Broadcom and Intel getting sued , but like you say PC " producers " barely produce the parts they use !
I wonder if it will get thrown out of court quickly or really quickly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably because they're idiots and don't really know what "patents" are or Ethernet for that matter.
I could understand Broadcom and Intel getting sued, but like you say PC "producers" barely produce the parts they use!
I wonder if it will get thrown out of court quickly or really quickly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804971</id>
	<title>Re:Damn!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256072220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If coaxial cables are a pain in the ass, you're putting them in the wrong place...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If coaxial cables are a pain in the ass , you 're putting them in the wrong place.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If coaxial cables are a pain in the ass, you're putting them in the wrong place...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805193</id>
	<title>Re:New Networking Technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256032200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, so let's all go scavenging the scrap yards for old Token ring cards!<p>
Reality check: Token ring would only be successful if swine flew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , so let 's all go scavenging the scrap yards for old Token ring cards !
Reality check : Token ring would only be successful if swine flew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, so let's all go scavenging the scrap yards for old Token ring cards!
Reality check: Token ring would only be successful if swine flew.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807205</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with patents is being able to sell them</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1256050200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm starting to think that one of the biggest problems with patents is being able to sell them and hold them with out making products based on them...</p><p>
Patents were supposed to protect the inventor, selling the patent isn't protecting the inventor anymore. Also unless a company merges with another company I think all patents that the company owns should dissolve with the company and be unpatentable.</p></div><p>This is an absolutely brilliant idea. All inventors should be employed by large faceless corporations, and if anyone is self-employed or invents something in their garage, they can't sell the patent to a company to make their invention. This would absolutely crush innovation by anyone <i>not</i> employed by a large corporation. As a wealthy investor who's opposed to competition from innovators, entrepreneurs, and small businesses, I welcome your idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to think that one of the biggest problems with patents is being able to sell them and hold them with out making products based on them.. . Patents were supposed to protect the inventor , selling the patent is n't protecting the inventor anymore .
Also unless a company merges with another company I think all patents that the company owns should dissolve with the company and be unpatentable.This is an absolutely brilliant idea .
All inventors should be employed by large faceless corporations , and if anyone is self-employed or invents something in their garage , they ca n't sell the patent to a company to make their invention .
This would absolutely crush innovation by anyone not employed by a large corporation .
As a wealthy investor who 's opposed to competition from innovators , entrepreneurs , and small businesses , I welcome your idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting to think that one of the biggest problems with patents is being able to sell them and hold them with out making products based on them...
Patents were supposed to protect the inventor, selling the patent isn't protecting the inventor anymore.
Also unless a company merges with another company I think all patents that the company owns should dissolve with the company and be unpatentable.This is an absolutely brilliant idea.
All inventors should be employed by large faceless corporations, and if anyone is self-employed or invents something in their garage, they can't sell the patent to a company to make their invention.
This would absolutely crush innovation by anyone not employed by a large corporation.
As a wealthy investor who's opposed to competition from innovators, entrepreneurs, and small businesses, I welcome your idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29814259</id>
	<title>Re:New(very old) Networking Technology</title>
	<author>FirstOne</author>
	<datestamp>1256032200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect, that they avoided suing
members who were on the 802.3 (Ethernet) committee. Each of which
contributed technology to the Ethernet standard(s). (Excepting HP,
which split off it's semi tech to Agilent Technologies. )</p><p>AMD, IBM, Intel and 3com where all core
members.
<a href="http://standards.ieee.org/db/patents/pat802\_3.html" title="ieee.org">&quot;802.3
Patent Letters of Assurance&quot;</a> [ieee.org] </p><p>I can only imagine that this lawsuit is
over Ethernet tech not based on Intel, AMD, IBM, or VIA chip
sets/technology. But, instead it's about routers, gateways, wireless
access points, printers, etc which connected up via Ethernet
tech.
</p><p>The concept of bus mastering/DMA hidden control &amp; buffer memory technology is just an extension of intelligent add on Ethernet boards, (VME, MultiBus-II, etc), dating
back to the early 1980's.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect , that they avoided suing members who were on the 802.3 ( Ethernet ) committee .
Each of which contributed technology to the Ethernet standard ( s ) .
( Excepting HP , which split off it 's semi tech to Agilent Technologies .
) AMD , IBM , Intel and 3com where all core members .
" 802.3 Patent Letters of Assurance " [ ieee.org ] I can only imagine that this lawsuit is over Ethernet tech not based on Intel , AMD , IBM , or VIA chip sets/technology .
But , instead it 's about routers , gateways , wireless access points , printers , etc which connected up via Ethernet tech .
The concept of bus mastering/DMA hidden control &amp; buffer memory technology is just an extension of intelligent add on Ethernet boards , ( VME , MultiBus-II , etc ) , dating back to the early 1980 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect, that they avoided suing
members who were on the 802.3 (Ethernet) committee.
Each of which
contributed technology to the Ethernet standard(s).
(Excepting HP,
which split off it's semi tech to Agilent Technologies.
)AMD, IBM, Intel and 3com where all core
members.
"802.3
Patent Letters of Assurance" [ieee.org] I can only imagine that this lawsuit is
over Ethernet tech not based on Intel, AMD, IBM, or VIA chip
sets/technology.
But, instead it's about routers, gateways, wireless
access points, printers, etc which connected up via Ethernet
tech.
The concept of bus mastering/DMA hidden control &amp; buffer memory technology is just an extension of intelligent add on Ethernet boards, (VME, MultiBus-II, etc), dating
back to the early 1980's.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804985</id>
	<title>Problem with patents is being able to sell them?</title>
	<author>HannethCom</author>
	<datestamp>1256029260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm starting to think that one of the biggest problems with patents is being able to sell them and hold them with out making products based on them. Well, the US patent system has a lot more problems like obvious things being patented and being able to patent business processes.<br>
<br>
But apart from the US,some of the biggest problems come up in companies buying patents and being patent trolls. Patents were supposed to protect the inventor, selling the patent isn't protecting the inventor anymore. Also unless a company merges with another company I think all patents that the company owns should dissolve with the company and be unpatentable.<br>
<br>
If you have a patent, I think you should be required to have products out using that patent, or at least working on making products with that patent. Too many companies patent something that they heard someone else speak about, they have no plans to use the patent, just profit off of someone else's work by beating them to the patent office, or just plain having the money to buy the patent where the person doesn't. I guess that still wouldn't quite solve the problem. There would need to be some process where you proved that you created the idea.<br>
<br>
*start rant* Now as for the US Patent system, there is an official report that calls it too much of a joke for us to merge our patent system with their's. Our company started looking at US Patents and as far as we can tell, you can't write a line of code with out violating a patent. It is so silly that "If...else" is patented. "ifelse" is patented. "Begin...End" is patented. I think you can get away with "{...}" blocks, but not much else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to think that one of the biggest problems with patents is being able to sell them and hold them with out making products based on them .
Well , the US patent system has a lot more problems like obvious things being patented and being able to patent business processes .
But apart from the US,some of the biggest problems come up in companies buying patents and being patent trolls .
Patents were supposed to protect the inventor , selling the patent is n't protecting the inventor anymore .
Also unless a company merges with another company I think all patents that the company owns should dissolve with the company and be unpatentable .
If you have a patent , I think you should be required to have products out using that patent , or at least working on making products with that patent .
Too many companies patent something that they heard someone else speak about , they have no plans to use the patent , just profit off of someone else 's work by beating them to the patent office , or just plain having the money to buy the patent where the person does n't .
I guess that still would n't quite solve the problem .
There would need to be some process where you proved that you created the idea .
* start rant * Now as for the US Patent system , there is an official report that calls it too much of a joke for us to merge our patent system with their 's .
Our company started looking at US Patents and as far as we can tell , you ca n't write a line of code with out violating a patent .
It is so silly that " If...else " is patented .
" ifelse " is patented .
" Begin...End " is patented .
I think you can get away with " { ... } " blocks , but not much else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm starting to think that one of the biggest problems with patents is being able to sell them and hold them with out making products based on them.
Well, the US patent system has a lot more problems like obvious things being patented and being able to patent business processes.
But apart from the US,some of the biggest problems come up in companies buying patents and being patent trolls.
Patents were supposed to protect the inventor, selling the patent isn't protecting the inventor anymore.
Also unless a company merges with another company I think all patents that the company owns should dissolve with the company and be unpatentable.
If you have a patent, I think you should be required to have products out using that patent, or at least working on making products with that patent.
Too many companies patent something that they heard someone else speak about, they have no plans to use the patent, just profit off of someone else's work by beating them to the patent office, or just plain having the money to buy the patent where the person doesn't.
I guess that still wouldn't quite solve the problem.
There would need to be some process where you proved that you created the idea.
*start rant* Now as for the US Patent system, there is an official report that calls it too much of a joke for us to merge our patent system with their's.
Our company started looking at US Patents and as far as we can tell, you can't write a line of code with out violating a patent.
It is so silly that "If...else" is patented.
"ifelse" is patented.
"Begin...End" is patented.
I think you can get away with "{...}" blocks, but not much else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805859</id>
	<title>Re:brilliant patent!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256041380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"&lt;sarcasm&gt;It patents the idea of putting a memory buffer on the network card. Who would have thought of that?&lt;/sarcasm&gt;"</p><p>Come on.  It's not *that* obvious.  They also use DMA to get the data to/from main memory.</p><p>Oh, wait, I forgot the sarcasm tag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It patents the idea of putting a memory buffer on the network card .
Who would have thought of that ?
" Come on .
It 's not * that * obvious .
They also use DMA to get the data to/from main memory.Oh , wait , I forgot the sarcasm tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It patents the idea of putting a memory buffer on the network card.
Who would have thought of that?
"Come on.
It's not *that* obvious.
They also use DMA to get the data to/from main memory.Oh, wait, I forgot the sarcasm tag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663</id>
	<title>pre-builts?</title>
	<author>Penguinoflight</author>
	<datestamp>1255981740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Legitimacy of the patents aside, I wonder why an Ethernet technology suit would be leveled against companies that do little more than assemble circuit boards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Legitimacy of the patents aside , I wonder why an Ethernet technology suit would be leveled against companies that do little more than assemble circuit boards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legitimacy of the patents aside, I wonder why an Ethernet technology suit would be leveled against companies that do little more than assemble circuit boards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805419</id>
	<title>but if they waited so long...</title>
	<author>powerspike</author>
	<datestamp>1256035200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, I'm not a lawyer, however isn't a part of the patent system protect it or lose it, if it was made apart of a standard that is used globally, it means they can't say they didn't know about it, so isn't them waiting 10 years invalidating the license because they didn't protect it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I 'm not a lawyer , however is n't a part of the patent system protect it or lose it , if it was made apart of a standard that is used globally , it means they ca n't say they did n't know about it , so is n't them waiting 10 years invalidating the license because they did n't protect it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I'm not a lawyer, however isn't a part of the patent system protect it or lose it, if it was made apart of a standard that is used globally, it means they can't say they didn't know about it, so isn't them waiting 10 years invalidating the license because they didn't protect it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807345</id>
	<title>Re:pre-builts?</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1256050860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't that fall under "obvious".  There are a lot of technologies that become obvious once the underlying technology is built.  In this case once you have an internet isn't it obvious that you can connect anything to it to track information?  Including vending machines, refrigerators, toasters, washing machines, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't that fall under " obvious " .
There are a lot of technologies that become obvious once the underlying technology is built .
In this case once you have an internet is n't it obvious that you can connect anything to it to track information ?
Including vending machines , refrigerators , toasters , washing machines , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't that fall under "obvious".
There are a lot of technologies that become obvious once the underlying technology is built.
In this case once you have an internet isn't it obvious that you can connect anything to it to track information?
Including vending machines, refrigerators, toasters, washing machines, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573</id>
	<title>Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1255980420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that asking for a trial by jury may very well backfire on them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that asking for a trial by jury may very well backfire on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that asking for a trial by jury may very well backfire on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805455</id>
	<title>Re:I before E except after C</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>weird  isn't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>weird is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>weird  isn't it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806531</id>
	<title>Re:New Networking Technology</title>
	<author>RalphSouth</author>
	<datestamp>1256047200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The IBM communications controllers of the 70s and 80s pushed data onto and off of coms lines by executing instructions that pushed from internal buffers to external buffers or vice versa.  I think that is pretty much part of any basic communications setup.  The IBM mainframes used channel programs that did the same thing but more elaborately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IBM communications controllers of the 70s and 80s pushed data onto and off of coms lines by executing instructions that pushed from internal buffers to external buffers or vice versa .
I think that is pretty much part of any basic communications setup .
The IBM mainframes used channel programs that did the same thing but more elaborately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IBM communications controllers of the 70s and 80s pushed data onto and off of coms lines by executing instructions that pushed from internal buffers to external buffers or vice versa.
I think that is pretty much part of any basic communications setup.
The IBM mainframes used channel programs that did the same thing but more elaborately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804897</id>
	<title>brilliant patent!</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1256070960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lt;sarcasm&gt;It patents the idea of putting a memory buffer on the network card.  Who would have thought of that?&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It patents the idea of putting a memory buffer on the network card .
Who would have thought of that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It patents the idea of putting a memory buffer on the network card.
Who would have thought of that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804741</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seems to me that asking for a trial by jury may very well backfire on them.</p></div><p>Most likely not.  Juries are not likely to be very technically apt.  It's almost certain that they will ask "have you ever used ethernet" during jury selection and avoid those people who know that they have.

</p><p>After that everyone will realise why it's called "intellectual property" by the fraudsters who run our legal systems.  The way it's presented the patent makes this patent someone's possession.  The jury just thinks "I wouldn't like it if someone took my car away from me; they should be going to prison and not just paying a fine".  The compensation ends up massive.

</p><p>The problem is that all these companies have set themselves up as fall guys since they all have legal departments which spout off about "respecting intellectual property".  They can't even use the argument that there is no such thing because their own press releases would be used against them.

</p><p>finally; blaming the patent troll is a bit stupid.  They are an inevitable part of a system which tries to treat ideas like property.  There are two groups available here to blame.  Those that set the laws take most of the blame and the IEEE where 3COM was a member at the time the standard was set should take the rest.  Organisations involved in standardisation should be required to defend the free use of a standard with all their patents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that asking for a trial by jury may very well backfire on them.Most likely not .
Juries are not likely to be very technically apt .
It 's almost certain that they will ask " have you ever used ethernet " during jury selection and avoid those people who know that they have .
After that everyone will realise why it 's called " intellectual property " by the fraudsters who run our legal systems .
The way it 's presented the patent makes this patent someone 's possession .
The jury just thinks " I would n't like it if someone took my car away from me ; they should be going to prison and not just paying a fine " .
The compensation ends up massive .
The problem is that all these companies have set themselves up as fall guys since they all have legal departments which spout off about " respecting intellectual property " .
They ca n't even use the argument that there is no such thing because their own press releases would be used against them .
finally ; blaming the patent troll is a bit stupid .
They are an inevitable part of a system which tries to treat ideas like property .
There are two groups available here to blame .
Those that set the laws take most of the blame and the IEEE where 3COM was a member at the time the standard was set should take the rest .
Organisations involved in standardisation should be required to defend the free use of a standard with all their patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that asking for a trial by jury may very well backfire on them.Most likely not.
Juries are not likely to be very technically apt.
It's almost certain that they will ask "have you ever used ethernet" during jury selection and avoid those people who know that they have.
After that everyone will realise why it's called "intellectual property" by the fraudsters who run our legal systems.
The way it's presented the patent makes this patent someone's possession.
The jury just thinks "I wouldn't like it if someone took my car away from me; they should be going to prison and not just paying a fine".
The compensation ends up massive.
The problem is that all these companies have set themselves up as fall guys since they all have legal departments which spout off about "respecting intellectual property".
They can't even use the argument that there is no such thing because their own press releases would be used against them.
finally; blaming the patent troll is a bit stupid.
They are an inevitable part of a system which tries to treat ideas like property.
There are two groups available here to blame.
Those that set the laws take most of the blame and the IEEE where 3COM was a member at the time the standard was set should take the rest.
Organisations involved in standardisation should be required to defend the free use of a standard with all their patents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29809005</id>
	<title>3com a patent troll?</title>
	<author>ArtemaOne</author>
	<datestamp>1256056860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Calling 3com a patent troll?  Are you serious or just stupid?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling 3com a patent troll ?
Are you serious or just stupid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling 3com a patent troll?
Are you serious or just stupid?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29930453</id>
	<title>There were both thin...</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1256906880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and *thick* coaxial cables<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and * thick * coaxial cables ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and *thick* coaxial cables ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805409</id>
	<title>Swine flew?</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1256035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, I hear there's a lot of that going 'round at the moment...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , I hear there 's a lot of that going 'round at the moment.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, I hear there's a lot of that going 'round at the moment...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805367</id>
	<title>Re:Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1256034660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to bet that when 3com sold that patents to USEI, there was some agreement that USEI would not sue specific other manufacturers which probably included the companies you mentioned. If the two networking power houses are anything like the CPU powerhouses, there are numerous patents 3com owns that Cisco infringes and numerous patents Cisco owns that 3com infringes upon. To sum it up, USEI probably inherited the MAD that 3com used to have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to bet that when 3com sold that patents to USEI , there was some agreement that USEI would not sue specific other manufacturers which probably included the companies you mentioned .
If the two networking power houses are anything like the CPU powerhouses , there are numerous patents 3com owns that Cisco infringes and numerous patents Cisco owns that 3com infringes upon .
To sum it up , USEI probably inherited the MAD that 3com used to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to bet that when 3com sold that patents to USEI, there was some agreement that USEI would not sue specific other manufacturers which probably included the companies you mentioned.
If the two networking power houses are anything like the CPU powerhouses, there are numerous patents 3com owns that Cisco infringes and numerous patents Cisco owns that 3com infringes upon.
To sum it up, USEI probably inherited the MAD that 3com used to have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805549</id>
	<title>ironically DMA mode on 3Com's never worked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256037180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From 1994 to 1997 I worked for a company that worked with 3Com writing device drivers for the 3Com adapters that seem to be based on these DMA patents. My vague recollection is that we spent at least 2 years working with at least 3 different versions of 3Com's EISA and PCI ethernet adapters and as far as I know the full DMA mode never worked 100\% correctly on any of them. The different versions of their controllers had different bugs. Some would lockup, some would drop interrupts, or randomly stop DMA mode, or corrupt buffers, etc.  I think in most cases the workaround suggestion from 3Com was to periodically poll the adapter status and if you detect it's wedged force a full reset and completely reinitialize the adapter. Of course doing stuff like that totally destroys system performance so we simply ignored the DMA capabilities and did PIO in the interrupt handlers to transfer packets to/from the adapters 1-2K buffers (one packet per interrupt). I might be wrong but I think it was at least 1998 and their 4th generation PCI-ethernet adapter before 3Com had a PCI-ethernet design that did DMA to/from ring buffers correctly and by that time the rest of the world was all shipping products based on $10 dnet-clones from 6 or 7 companies in Taiwan (and 3Com's design had morphed into a something that looked a lot like dnet-clone but with a lot of extra, useless features).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From 1994 to 1997 I worked for a company that worked with 3Com writing device drivers for the 3Com adapters that seem to be based on these DMA patents .
My vague recollection is that we spent at least 2 years working with at least 3 different versions of 3Com 's EISA and PCI ethernet adapters and as far as I know the full DMA mode never worked 100 \ % correctly on any of them .
The different versions of their controllers had different bugs .
Some would lockup , some would drop interrupts , or randomly stop DMA mode , or corrupt buffers , etc .
I think in most cases the workaround suggestion from 3Com was to periodically poll the adapter status and if you detect it 's wedged force a full reset and completely reinitialize the adapter .
Of course doing stuff like that totally destroys system performance so we simply ignored the DMA capabilities and did PIO in the interrupt handlers to transfer packets to/from the adapters 1-2K buffers ( one packet per interrupt ) .
I might be wrong but I think it was at least 1998 and their 4th generation PCI-ethernet adapter before 3Com had a PCI-ethernet design that did DMA to/from ring buffers correctly and by that time the rest of the world was all shipping products based on $ 10 dnet-clones from 6 or 7 companies in Taiwan ( and 3Com 's design had morphed into a something that looked a lot like dnet-clone but with a lot of extra , useless features ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From 1994 to 1997 I worked for a company that worked with 3Com writing device drivers for the 3Com adapters that seem to be based on these DMA patents.
My vague recollection is that we spent at least 2 years working with at least 3 different versions of 3Com's EISA and PCI ethernet adapters and as far as I know the full DMA mode never worked 100\% correctly on any of them.
The different versions of their controllers had different bugs.
Some would lockup, some would drop interrupts, or randomly stop DMA mode, or corrupt buffers, etc.
I think in most cases the workaround suggestion from 3Com was to periodically poll the adapter status and if you detect it's wedged force a full reset and completely reinitialize the adapter.
Of course doing stuff like that totally destroys system performance so we simply ignored the DMA capabilities and did PIO in the interrupt handlers to transfer packets to/from the adapters 1-2K buffers (one packet per interrupt).
I might be wrong but I think it was at least 1998 and their 4th generation PCI-ethernet adapter before 3Com had a PCI-ethernet design that did DMA to/from ring buffers correctly and by that time the rest of the world was all shipping products based on $10 dnet-clones from 6 or 7 companies in Taiwan (and 3Com's design had morphed into a something that looked a lot like dnet-clone but with a lot of extra, useless features).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805861</id>
	<title>Patent troll?</title>
	<author>voss</author>
	<datestamp>1256041380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because a company holds a patent you dont like doesnt mean they are a patent troll.</p><p>3com may have very well held legitimate patents that were routinely and widely violated, they sold the patents<br>because it wasnt worth the effort to sue patent violators.</p><p>These are not software patents, they are regular old style patents.</p><p>They are not suing open source, they are suing large well funded companies that made healthy profits<br>using the technologies these patents were based on.</p><p>In any event the patent they are referring to expires in three years so if they are going to sue its now or never.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a company holds a patent you dont like doesnt mean they are a patent troll.3com may have very well held legitimate patents that were routinely and widely violated , they sold the patentsbecause it wasnt worth the effort to sue patent violators.These are not software patents , they are regular old style patents.They are not suing open source , they are suing large well funded companies that made healthy profitsusing the technologies these patents were based on.In any event the patent they are referring to expires in three years so if they are going to sue its now or never .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a company holds a patent you dont like doesnt mean they are a patent troll.3com may have very well held legitimate patents that were routinely and widely violated, they sold the patentsbecause it wasnt worth the effort to sue patent violators.These are not software patents, they are regular old style patents.They are not suing open source, they are suing large well funded companies that made healthy profitsusing the technologies these patents were based on.In any event the patent they are referring to expires in three years so if they are going to sue its now or never.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804757</id>
	<title>Re:New Networking Technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here comes the GNU / Ubuntu, here comes the GNU / Ubuntu<br>Watch him walk this way, watch him walk that way<br>There goes the GNU / Ubuntu, there goes the GNU / Ubuntu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here comes the GNU / Ubuntu , here comes the GNU / UbuntuWatch him walk this way , watch him walk that wayThere goes the GNU / Ubuntu , there goes the GNU / Ubuntu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here comes the GNU / Ubuntu, here comes the GNU / UbuntuWatch him walk this way, watch him walk that wayThere goes the GNU / Ubuntu, there goes the GNU / Ubuntu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806157</id>
	<title>Re:Trial by jury...</title>
	<author>Sparky McGruff</author>
	<datestamp>1256044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe, just maybe, one or two of them might have an iPhone or an iPod.  I know that most people use the amazing Zune, but there's a few iPods and iPhones out there.   So maybe there are a few jurors that have a decent feeling about Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , just maybe , one or two of them might have an iPhone or an iPod .
I know that most people use the amazing Zune , but there 's a few iPods and iPhones out there .
So maybe there are a few jurors that have a decent feeling about Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, just maybe, one or two of them might have an iPhone or an iPod.
I know that most people use the amazing Zune, but there's a few iPods and iPhones out there.
So maybe there are a few jurors that have a decent feeling about Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807091</id>
	<title>Re:Why the end user companies?</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1256049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Companies like Dell, Apple, Acer, HP and the beige box boys can simply just ignore the patent and say "Talk to Intel/nVidia/chipset vendor X" or simply not include onboard NIC machines and switch to using PCI/USB cards instead.</p><p>Or am I completely missing something?</p></div><p>Yes - patents grant the right to exclude others from manufacturing and selling your product... and they also grant the right to exclude others from <i>using</i> your product.  So if Dell and Apple's sole defense is "we don't manufacture or sell the part", then they're screwed.  PCI/USB cards would get them out of it, however, provided they're not bundling the cards with their machines and/or the PCI/USB card manufacturer has paid for a patent license.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies like Dell , Apple , Acer , HP and the beige box boys can simply just ignore the patent and say " Talk to Intel/nVidia/chipset vendor X " or simply not include onboard NIC machines and switch to using PCI/USB cards instead.Or am I completely missing something ? Yes - patents grant the right to exclude others from manufacturing and selling your product... and they also grant the right to exclude others from using your product .
So if Dell and Apple 's sole defense is " we do n't manufacture or sell the part " , then they 're screwed .
PCI/USB cards would get them out of it , however , provided they 're not bundling the cards with their machines and/or the PCI/USB card manufacturer has paid for a patent license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies like Dell, Apple, Acer, HP and the beige box boys can simply just ignore the patent and say "Talk to Intel/nVidia/chipset vendor X" or simply not include onboard NIC machines and switch to using PCI/USB cards instead.Or am I completely missing something?Yes - patents grant the right to exclude others from manufacturing and selling your product... and they also grant the right to exclude others from using your product.
So if Dell and Apple's sole defense is "we don't manufacture or sell the part", then they're screwed.
PCI/USB cards would get them out of it, however, provided they're not bundling the cards with their machines and/or the PCI/USB card manufacturer has paid for a patent license.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806797</id>
	<title>Re:Missing Lawsuit Targets?</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1256048580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, and I recall my Asus motherboards from the 90's had 3Com ethernet controllers, so perhaps the list of defendants is just 3Com's former clients.</p><p>And speaking of missed targets, why is Apple singled out above the other brands, "Acer, ASUS, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, Hewlett Packard, Sony, and Toshiba", whom each probably sold more ethernet-equipped products?  Apple isn't that sexy.  I was drawn to this thread curious over why Apple would be singled out, but clearly they weren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , and I recall my Asus motherboards from the 90 's had 3Com ethernet controllers , so perhaps the list of defendants is just 3Com 's former clients.And speaking of missed targets , why is Apple singled out above the other brands , " Acer , ASUS , Dell , Fujitsu , Gateway , Hewlett Packard , Sony , and Toshiba " , whom each probably sold more ethernet-equipped products ?
Apple is n't that sexy .
I was drawn to this thread curious over why Apple would be singled out , but clearly they were n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, and I recall my Asus motherboards from the 90's had 3Com ethernet controllers, so perhaps the list of defendants is just 3Com's former clients.And speaking of missed targets, why is Apple singled out above the other brands, "Acer, ASUS, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, Hewlett Packard, Sony, and Toshiba", whom each probably sold more ethernet-equipped products?
Apple isn't that sexy.
I was drawn to this thread curious over why Apple would be singled out, but clearly they weren't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29809449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29820077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29821369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29819893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29814259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29814439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29813631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29817635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29944320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29815507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29810823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29818141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29930453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29809101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_0026243_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29820077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29813631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29930453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29814439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29809005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29815405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29815507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804781
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806073
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29821369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805365
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29809101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29817635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805441
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29819893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29818141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805455
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29810823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805933
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29944320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805339
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807569
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806157
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805297
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29809449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805403
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29814259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_0026243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29804767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29811271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29806797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29808061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29805647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_0026243.29807135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
