<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_22_1541220</id>
	<title>Nokia Sues Apple For Patent Infringement In iPhone</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1256231520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:slashdot@nosPam.avee.org" rel="nofollow">AVee</a> writes <i>"Engadget (amongst many others) reports that <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/nokia-sues-apple-says-iphone-infringes-ten-patents/">Nokia is suing Apple</a> because the iPhone infringes on 10 Nokia patents related to GSM, UTMS and WiFi. While the <a href="http://www.nokia.com/press/press-releases/showpressrelease?newsid=1349562">press release</a> doesn't contain much detail, it does state that Apple didn't agree to 'appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property,' which sounds like there have been negotiations about those patents."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>AVee writes " Engadget ( amongst many others ) reports that Nokia is suing Apple because the iPhone infringes on 10 Nokia patents related to GSM , UTMS and WiFi .
While the press release does n't contain much detail , it does state that Apple did n't agree to 'appropriate terms for Nokia 's intellectual property, ' which sounds like there have been negotiations about those patents .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AVee writes "Engadget (amongst many others) reports that Nokia is suing Apple because the iPhone infringes on 10 Nokia patents related to GSM, UTMS and WiFi.
While the press release doesn't contain much detail, it does state that Apple didn't agree to 'appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property,' which sounds like there have been negotiations about those patents.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29845379</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people this much against patents?</title>
	<author>Troed</author>
	<datestamp>1256309280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most of the innovation in the western world is due to patents.</i></p><p>No.</p><p>(Yes, I'm a patent holder)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the innovation in the western world is due to patents.No .
( Yes , I 'm a patent holder )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the innovation in the western world is due to patents.No.
(Yes, I'm a patent holder)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838027</id>
	<title>What a coincidence</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1256238360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I guess this isn't because Nokia have made a loss and want to hurt their biggest rival in the smartphone market?</p><p>I hope Apple countersue on the basis that Nokia has infringed app store patents, Nokia have even 'stolen' the visual style of icon Apple use (rounded squares with an icon).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess this is n't because Nokia have made a loss and want to hurt their biggest rival in the smartphone market ? I hope Apple countersue on the basis that Nokia has infringed app store patents , Nokia have even 'stolen ' the visual style of icon Apple use ( rounded squares with an icon ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess this isn't because Nokia have made a loss and want to hurt their biggest rival in the smartphone market?I hope Apple countersue on the basis that Nokia has infringed app store patents, Nokia have even 'stolen' the visual style of icon Apple use (rounded squares with an icon).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427</id>
	<title>Those 40 other... losers?</title>
	<author>Anonymusing</author>
	<datestamp>1256236080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Apple thinks the patents won't stand up in court. Just because 40 other companies licensed them from Nokia, doesn't mean those other companies actually considered taking on Nokia.  Are those other companies as big and brash as Apple?  Apple has an estimated market cap of ~$180 billion, while Nokia has ~$50 billion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Apple thinks the patents wo n't stand up in court .
Just because 40 other companies licensed them from Nokia , does n't mean those other companies actually considered taking on Nokia .
Are those other companies as big and brash as Apple ?
Apple has an estimated market cap of ~ $ 180 billion , while Nokia has ~ $ 50 billion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Apple thinks the patents won't stand up in court.
Just because 40 other companies licensed them from Nokia, doesn't mean those other companies actually considered taking on Nokia.
Are those other companies as big and brash as Apple?
Apple has an estimated market cap of ~$180 billion, while Nokia has ~$50 billion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837773</id>
	<title>Corporate Logic(TM)</title>
	<author>hydrofi</author>
	<datestamp>1256237340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you can't win them by producing a better-quality product, just sue them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you ca n't win them by producing a better-quality product , just sue them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you can't win them by producing a better-quality product, just sue them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840463</id>
	<title>Re:Those 40 other... losers?</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1256207760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that two of the companies are LG Electronics and Sony... I'd say it's fairly safe to assume they could fight back in court if they really wanted to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that two of the companies are LG Electronics and Sony... I 'd say it 's fairly safe to assume they could fight back in court if they really wanted to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that two of the companies are LG Electronics and Sony... I'd say it's fairly safe to assume they could fight back in court if they really wanted to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838789</id>
	<title>I attended Qt Developers Days in Munich this year</title>
	<author>Tanuki64</author>
	<datestamp>1256242020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There Nokia presented among other new techniques the 'declarative ui' for Qt. Very powerful stuff. A dozen or two lines of code and even a mediocre programmer can 'recreate' most if not all of the iPhone user interface. In the past Apple did threaten to sue groups/companies when it thought they came too close to the Apple look and feel. In countries where software patents are valid Apple should have a very good stand. So I admit I speculate, but I would not be surprised if there was some sort of thread from Apple and this is the counter reaction from Nokia. Now they probably evaluate and compare their patents and if none of them has a clear advantage the problem will be settled more or less peacefully.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There Nokia presented among other new techniques the 'declarative ui ' for Qt .
Very powerful stuff .
A dozen or two lines of code and even a mediocre programmer can 'recreate ' most if not all of the iPhone user interface .
In the past Apple did threaten to sue groups/companies when it thought they came too close to the Apple look and feel .
In countries where software patents are valid Apple should have a very good stand .
So I admit I speculate , but I would not be surprised if there was some sort of thread from Apple and this is the counter reaction from Nokia .
Now they probably evaluate and compare their patents and if none of them has a clear advantage the problem will be settled more or less peacefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There Nokia presented among other new techniques the 'declarative ui' for Qt.
Very powerful stuff.
A dozen or two lines of code and even a mediocre programmer can 'recreate' most if not all of the iPhone user interface.
In the past Apple did threaten to sue groups/companies when it thought they came too close to the Apple look and feel.
In countries where software patents are valid Apple should have a very good stand.
So I admit I speculate, but I would not be surprised if there was some sort of thread from Apple and this is the counter reaction from Nokia.
Now they probably evaluate and compare their patents and if none of them has a clear advantage the problem will be settled more or less peacefully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29845145</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to do with software !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256307540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI: The patents in suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,802,465; 6,359,904; 6,694,135; 6,775,548; 7,092,672; 5,862,178; 5,946,651; 6,882,727; 7,009,940; 7,403,621.  The patents cover wireless, speech coding, and security &amp; encryption.</p><p>On why Apple is responsible for licensing from Nokia:  it's because Apple is a member of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), which has an IP policy that basically requires its members to obtain licenses from those holding patent rights on the standards in good faith.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI : The patents in suit are U.S. Patent Nos .
5,802,465 ; 6,359,904 ; 6,694,135 ; 6,775,548 ; 7,092,672 ; 5,862,178 ; 5,946,651 ; 6,882,727 ; 7,009,940 ; 7,403,621 .
The patents cover wireless , speech coding , and security &amp; encryption.On why Apple is responsible for licensing from Nokia : it 's because Apple is a member of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute ( ETSI ) , which has an IP policy that basically requires its members to obtain licenses from those holding patent rights on the standards in good faith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI: The patents in suit are U.S. Patent Nos.
5,802,465; 6,359,904; 6,694,135; 6,775,548; 7,092,672; 5,862,178; 5,946,651; 6,882,727; 7,009,940; 7,403,621.
The patents cover wireless, speech coding, and security &amp; encryption.On why Apple is responsible for licensing from Nokia:  it's because Apple is a member of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), which has an IP policy that basically requires its members to obtain licenses from those holding patent rights on the standards in good faith.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838733</id>
	<title>Re:Two way street</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1256241780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never been a big fan of Nokia, but this makes me not only less of a fan, but i question the intelligence of their leadership.</p><p>Apple has one of the best due dilligence and patent defence legal teams in the world.  If they're infringing, it's either an obscure patent noone could find actual reference to and a judge will let them off easy; something Broadcom themselves already paid the royalty for, or so broad Apple's lawyers were confident it meant nothing.  Very few people challenge apple in court and win.  When Apple feels there is an issue, they volunteer fair compensation, and the times its been refused and gone to court, the judge maid them pay a smaller penalty than the payment they initially offered that the judge agreed was fair.</p><p>1-2\% of the cost of the device?  no, royalties are typically 1-2\% of the cost of the patented technology, not the sum of the complete manufactured device.  If nokia got $0.10 for each phone using GSM technology, that alone would be a massive amount of money.  $12/iPhone?  no reasonable judge would award that unless nokia could prove Apple willfully infringed, but it seems the evidence presented already contradicts that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never been a big fan of Nokia , but this makes me not only less of a fan , but i question the intelligence of their leadership.Apple has one of the best due dilligence and patent defence legal teams in the world .
If they 're infringing , it 's either an obscure patent noone could find actual reference to and a judge will let them off easy ; something Broadcom themselves already paid the royalty for , or so broad Apple 's lawyers were confident it meant nothing .
Very few people challenge apple in court and win .
When Apple feels there is an issue , they volunteer fair compensation , and the times its been refused and gone to court , the judge maid them pay a smaller penalty than the payment they initially offered that the judge agreed was fair.1-2 \ % of the cost of the device ?
no , royalties are typically 1-2 \ % of the cost of the patented technology , not the sum of the complete manufactured device .
If nokia got $ 0.10 for each phone using GSM technology , that alone would be a massive amount of money .
$ 12/iPhone ? no reasonable judge would award that unless nokia could prove Apple willfully infringed , but it seems the evidence presented already contradicts that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never been a big fan of Nokia, but this makes me not only less of a fan, but i question the intelligence of their leadership.Apple has one of the best due dilligence and patent defence legal teams in the world.
If they're infringing, it's either an obscure patent noone could find actual reference to and a judge will let them off easy; something Broadcom themselves already paid the royalty for, or so broad Apple's lawyers were confident it meant nothing.
Very few people challenge apple in court and win.
When Apple feels there is an issue, they volunteer fair compensation, and the times its been refused and gone to court, the judge maid them pay a smaller penalty than the payment they initially offered that the judge agreed was fair.1-2\% of the cost of the device?
no, royalties are typically 1-2\% of the cost of the patented technology, not the sum of the complete manufactured device.
If nokia got $0.10 for each phone using GSM technology, that alone would be a massive amount of money.
$12/iPhone?  no reasonable judge would award that unless nokia could prove Apple willfully infringed, but it seems the evidence presented already contradicts that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256235960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Nokia invests over 40 billion EUR on R&amp;D
<br>
2. Every manufacturer apart from one pays Nokia for their hard work
<br>
3. Instead of paying (like everybody else) Apple chooses to steal from Nokia
<br>
4. Nokia sues Apple
<br>
<br>
Is it really patent trolling?</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Nokia invests over 40 billion EUR on R&amp;D 2 .
Every manufacturer apart from one pays Nokia for their hard work 3 .
Instead of paying ( like everybody else ) Apple chooses to steal from Nokia 4 .
Nokia sues Apple Is it really patent trolling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Nokia invests over 40 billion EUR on R&amp;D

2.
Every manufacturer apart from one pays Nokia for their hard work

3.
Instead of paying (like everybody else) Apple chooses to steal from Nokia

4.
Nokia sues Apple


Is it really patent trolling?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838579</id>
	<title>Re:Two way street</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1256241000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>lawyers use these patents as a sort of negotiation tool.</p></div><p>You mean, of course,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sort of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampo" title="wikipedia.org">Sampo</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>(Wikipedia is shit, Sampo is most likely kinda (fake?) money making machine (with super powers - it is mythology after all).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lawyers use these patents as a sort of negotiation tool.You mean , of course , ... sort of Sampo [ wikipedia.org ] .
( Wikipedia is shit , Sampo is most likely kinda ( fake ?
) money making machine ( with super powers - it is mythology after all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lawyers use these patents as a sort of negotiation tool.You mean, of course, ... sort of Sampo [wikipedia.org].
(Wikipedia is shit, Sampo is most likely kinda (fake?
) money making machine (with super powers - it is mythology after all).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29848899</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>Nakarti</author>
	<datestamp>1256324880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because patents have a very limited lifetime.</p><p>Why, would you prefer they be protected by copyright?</p><p>Your question lost its legitimacy when it wasn't about open standards(if the standard is supposed to be free, the tech behind it can't be monopolized.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because patents have a very limited lifetime.Why , would you prefer they be protected by copyright ? Your question lost its legitimacy when it was n't about open standards ( if the standard is supposed to be free , the tech behind it ca n't be monopolized .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because patents have a very limited lifetime.Why, would you prefer they be protected by copyright?Your question lost its legitimacy when it wasn't about open standards(if the standard is supposed to be free, the tech behind it can't be monopolized.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29868219</id>
	<title>Lot Air max woman shox shoes, DG shoes Going See</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256479440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Welcome TO Our Website:   Http://www.tntshoes.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos .<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; we have large brand new t-shirt,shoes,clothing, handbags,sunglasses,hats etc for sale, 100\% best quality but the price is amazing. Our website is see our website in the photos attached, if interested please email me by we .</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; OUR WEBSITE:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome TO Our Website : Http : //www.tntshoes.com           we are a prefession online store , you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos .
        we have large brand new t-shirt,shoes,clothing , handbags,sunglasses,hats etc for sale , 100 \ % best quality but the price is amazing .
Our website is see our website in the photos attached , if interested please email me by we .
    OUR WEBSITE :                                                         YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                                                                                     MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Welcome TO Our Website:   Http://www.tntshoes.com
          we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos .
        we have large brand new t-shirt,shoes,clothing, handbags,sunglasses,hats etc for sale, 100\% best quality but the price is amazing.
Our website is see our website in the photos attached, if interested please email me by we .
    OUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                                                                                    MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838737</id>
	<title>just business</title>
	<author>dUN82</author>
	<datestamp>1256241780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, text book case how to run a successful business if you cannot beat them in business...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , text book case how to run a successful business if you can not beat them in business.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, text book case how to run a successful business if you cannot beat them in business...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837647</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256236980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know... If you read the quote (copy&amp;paste from BBC website):<br>
"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president of Legal &amp; Intellectual Property at Nokia.<br>

"Apple is also expected to follow this principle." <br>
<br>
It seems that is more of a 'gentlemen agreement' thing.<br>
I am not a native English speaker, though.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know... If you read the quote ( copy&amp;paste from BBC website ) : " The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property , which others then need to compensate for , " said Ilkka Rahnasto , vice president of Legal &amp; Intellectual Property at Nokia .
" Apple is also expected to follow this principle .
" It seems that is more of a 'gentlemen agreement ' thing .
I am not a native English speaker , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know... If you read the quote (copy&amp;paste from BBC website):
"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president of Legal &amp; Intellectual Property at Nokia.
"Apple is also expected to follow this principle.
" 

It seems that is more of a 'gentlemen agreement' thing.
I am not a native English speaker, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839753</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256203920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has meaner lawyers than the other manufacturers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has meaner lawyers than the other manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has meaner lawyers than the other manufacturers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838381</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256239920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are standards based on patented technology?</p></div><p>Because usually it is the owners of patents that decide about standards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are standards based on patented technology ? Because usually it is the owners of patents that decide about standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are standards based on patented technology?Because usually it is the owners of patents that decide about standards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837249</id>
	<title>Not for long !</title>
	<author>Pieroxy</author>
	<datestamp>1256235420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once the <a href="http://pieroxy.blogspot.com/2009/08/news-from-missouri-my-iphone-flew-away.html" title="blogspot.com">iPhones will have all flown away</a> [blogspot.com], Nokia will be left with noone to sue !!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once the iPhones will have all flown away [ blogspot.com ] , Nokia will be left with noone to sue ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once the iPhones will have all flown away [blogspot.com], Nokia will be left with noone to sue !!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838951</id>
	<title>Hello? Hello?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256242860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn that mute button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn that mute button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn that mute button.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842943</id>
	<title>Re:Presumed guilty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256234280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing if the company was Microsoft, and also maybe IBM or Oracle.  But definitely if it was Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing if the company was Microsoft , and also maybe IBM or Oracle .
But definitely if it was Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing if the company was Microsoft, and also maybe IBM or Oracle.
But definitely if it was Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261</id>
	<title>So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256235480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hate Apple...<br>
But hate patent trolling...<br>
<br> <br>
My brain hurts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate Apple.. . But hate patent trolling.. . My brain hurts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate Apple...
But hate patent trolling...
 
My brain hurts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839427</id>
	<title>Re:not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256202120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about comparing Apple's contribution to the Open Source community as compared to Nokia? Grand Central Dispatch, Darwin, WebKit, OpenCL, etc, compared to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about comparing Apple 's contribution to the Open Source community as compared to Nokia ?
Grand Central Dispatch , Darwin , WebKit , OpenCL , etc , compared to ... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about comparing Apple's contribution to the Open Source community as compared to Nokia?
Grand Central Dispatch, Darwin, WebKit, OpenCL, etc, compared to ... ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838183</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1256238960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nokia blackmails everybody else<br>
they all cave and pay the troll<br>
Apple stands against the troll<br>
Is it really not patent trolling. Matter of perspective I guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia blackmails everybody else they all cave and pay the troll Apple stands against the troll Is it really not patent trolling .
Matter of perspective I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia blackmails everybody else
they all cave and pay the troll
Apple stands against the troll
Is it really not patent trolling.
Matter of perspective I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837475</id>
	<title>Oh boy! A lawsuit story!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256236260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would you just do a spinoff site calls "SueDot" already?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you just do a spinoff site calls " SueDot " already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you just do a spinoff site calls "SueDot" already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841915</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256219460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are standards based on patented technology?</p></div><p>Ha. I agree! Nokia are jealous because they cant<br>catch up and control the market . No wonder its because iphone allows<br>
&nbsp; everyone to profit from - including you and me  &gt;&gt;&gt; www.serious-iphoneprofits.cjb.net</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are standards based on patented technology ? Ha .
I agree !
Nokia are jealous because they cantcatch up and control the market .
No wonder its because iphone allows   everyone to profit from - including you and me &gt; &gt; &gt; www.serious-iphoneprofits.cjb.net</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are standards based on patented technology?Ha.
I agree!
Nokia are jealous because they cantcatch up and control the market .
No wonder its because iphone allows
  everyone to profit from - including you and me  &gt;&gt;&gt; www.serious-iphoneprofits.cjb.net
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844557</id>
	<title>What is this....</title>
	<author>Slash.Poop</author>
	<datestamp>1256303460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>....the 4th or 5th story lately of Apple infringing patents?<br>
Yup, they seem like quite an upstanding and benevolent company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>....the 4th or 5th story lately of Apple infringing patents ?
Yup , they seem like quite an upstanding and benevolent company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....the 4th or 5th story lately of Apple infringing patents?
Yup, they seem like quite an upstanding and benevolent company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838173</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256238960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how long has the iPhone been on the market?</p><p>This is so Neo-European... Replace the ability to innovate with litigation.</p><p>Whimps socialistes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how long has the iPhone been on the market ? This is so Neo-European... Replace the ability to innovate with litigation.Whimps socialistes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how long has the iPhone been on the market?This is so Neo-European... Replace the ability to innovate with litigation.Whimps socialistes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843817</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>XedLightParticle</author>
	<datestamp>1256293500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because getting several kilometers radius of coverage from one antenna to hundreds of phones without causing intolerable interference cannot be done in theory alone, field testing and measurements are necessary and needs expensive equipment before any federal organization would dare to assign a radio frequency spectrum to your standard.<br> <br>
Also because antenna design has gone from internal to internal, and makes a big difference in range, another task that needs more than theory. This has nothing to do with the standard as such, it would just require iPhone to have a little <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DynaTAC8000X.jpg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">external antenna</a> [wikipedia.org], remember those good times?<br>
It's simple, not everything can be done in software and theory, and real world costs real money... unfortunately</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because getting several kilometers radius of coverage from one antenna to hundreds of phones without causing intolerable interference can not be done in theory alone , field testing and measurements are necessary and needs expensive equipment before any federal organization would dare to assign a radio frequency spectrum to your standard .
Also because antenna design has gone from internal to internal , and makes a big difference in range , another task that needs more than theory .
This has nothing to do with the standard as such , it would just require iPhone to have a little external antenna [ wikipedia.org ] , remember those good times ?
It 's simple , not everything can be done in software and theory , and real world costs real money... unfortunately</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because getting several kilometers radius of coverage from one antenna to hundreds of phones without causing intolerable interference cannot be done in theory alone, field testing and measurements are necessary and needs expensive equipment before any federal organization would dare to assign a radio frequency spectrum to your standard.
Also because antenna design has gone from internal to internal, and makes a big difference in range, another task that needs more than theory.
This has nothing to do with the standard as such, it would just require iPhone to have a little external antenna [wikipedia.org], remember those good times?
It's simple, not everything can be done in software and theory, and real world costs real money... unfortunately</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838917</id>
	<title>Apple spent 1.1 billion on R&amp;D in 2008</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1256242680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.tuaw.com/2008/11/07/apple-adds-staff-boosts-randd-spending-in-fy2008/" title="tuaw.com">http://www.tuaw.com/2008/11/07/apple-adds-staff-boosts-randd-spending-in-fy2008/</a> [tuaw.com]</p><p>Doesn't sound below average to me, at all.  Where do you think the new products they produce in a steady stream come from, a nearby magic forest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.tuaw.com/2008/11/07/apple-adds-staff-boosts-randd-spending-in-fy2008/ [ tuaw.com ] Does n't sound below average to me , at all .
Where do you think the new products they produce in a steady stream come from , a nearby magic forest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.tuaw.com/2008/11/07/apple-adds-staff-boosts-randd-spending-in-fy2008/ [tuaw.com]Doesn't sound below average to me, at all.
Where do you think the new products they produce in a steady stream come from, a nearby magic forest?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838367</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>rattaroaz</author>
	<datestamp>1256239860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is it really patent trolling?</p></div><p>No.  Apple spokesperson did come out saying patents and the patent system is perfectly fine, so they would agree with this lawsuit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really patent trolling ? No .
Apple spokesperson did come out saying patents and the patent system is perfectly fine , so they would agree with this lawsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really patent trolling?No.
Apple spokesperson did come out saying patents and the patent system is perfectly fine, so they would agree with this lawsuit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839617</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256203140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia will burn in hell for their blasphemy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia will burn in hell for their blasphemy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia will burn in hell for their blasphemy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837353</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256235840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you know what "patent trolling" is?  It's when people or companies register patents for technologies that they never intend to use or implement, for the sole purpose of suing others.</p><p>Nokia does, in fact, make phones and other communication devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know what " patent trolling " is ?
It 's when people or companies register patents for technologies that they never intend to use or implement , for the sole purpose of suing others.Nokia does , in fact , make phones and other communication devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know what "patent trolling" is?
It's when people or companies register patents for technologies that they never intend to use or implement, for the sole purpose of suing others.Nokia does, in fact, make phones and other communication devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838267</id>
	<title>Re:Those 40 other... losers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256239380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's pure zealot Apple fanboy logic right there.</p><p>Apple's right and everyone else in the world is just wrong and naive.</p><p>Good one. Gave me a chuckle at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pure zealot Apple fanboy logic right there.Apple 's right and everyone else in the world is just wrong and naive.Good one .
Gave me a chuckle at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pure zealot Apple fanboy logic right there.Apple's right and everyone else in the world is just wrong and naive.Good one.
Gave me a chuckle at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837649</id>
	<title>Re:Two way street</title>
	<author>MadFarmAnimalz</author>
	<datestamp>1256236980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, we already have <a href="http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/FSO" title="openmoko.org">FSO</a> [openmoko.org]. I'm no subject matter expert, but a lot of the arguments for why Ofono and not FSO is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not\_Invented\_Here" title="wikipedia.org">NIH</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we already have FSO [ openmoko.org ] .
I 'm no subject matter expert , but a lot of the arguments for why Ofono and not FSO is NIH [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we already have FSO [openmoko.org].
I'm no subject matter expert, but a lot of the arguments for why Ofono and not FSO is NIH [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29853827</id>
	<title>Re:not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256312040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought webkit was KHTML before, nooh  I must be mistaken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought webkit was KHTML before , nooh I must be mistaken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought webkit was KHTML before, nooh  I must be mistaken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838487</id>
	<title>Re:There's That Progress in Science &amp; the Usef</title>
	<author>ifwm</author>
	<datestamp>1256240460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Right? No, that doesn't seem right to me, either."</p><p>That's because you're stupid.</p><p>Which you will once again prove by replying and acting like a three year old every time anyone disagrees with your pathetic posting 30 times a day ass.</p><p>Why haven't you killed yourself yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Right ?
No , that does n't seem right to me , either .
" That 's because you 're stupid.Which you will once again prove by replying and acting like a three year old every time anyone disagrees with your pathetic posting 30 times a day ass.Why have n't you killed yourself yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Right?
No, that doesn't seem right to me, either.
"That's because you're stupid.Which you will once again prove by replying and acting like a three year old every time anyone disagrees with your pathetic posting 30 times a day ass.Why haven't you killed yourself yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842889</id>
	<title>Re:not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256233440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Apple essentially doesn't publish and doesn't support university research."</p><p>It doesn't publish, but it does support research - they fund quite a number of PhD scholarships worldwide, they just don't make a big deal about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Apple essentially does n't publish and does n't support university research .
" It does n't publish , but it does support research - they fund quite a number of PhD scholarships worldwide , they just do n't make a big deal about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Apple essentially doesn't publish and doesn't support university research.
"It doesn't publish, but it does support research - they fund quite a number of PhD scholarships worldwide, they just don't make a big deal about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840227</id>
	<title>Money money money</title>
	<author>ForMeToPoopOn</author>
	<datestamp>1256206500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just look at the recent financial news: Apple is making tons of $$$, Nokia is in the red.</p><p>Next thing, Nokia sues Apple.</p><p>Coincidence?</p><p>I think NOT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look at the recent financial news : Apple is making tons of $ $ $ , Nokia is in the red.Next thing , Nokia sues Apple.Coincidence ? I think NOT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look at the recent financial news: Apple is making tons of $$$, Nokia is in the red.Next thing, Nokia sues Apple.Coincidence?I think NOT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838159</id>
	<title>It is time...</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1256238900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is time for the FTC and the FCC to break up the illegal phone/carrier bundling that is so prevalent in the marketplace.</p><p>If this happened, these lawsuits wouldn't matter.</p><p>Let me but a 3G phone and use it on any 3G network.</p><p>Let me buy a 2.5G phone and use it on any 2.5G network.</p><p>Let the phone makers compete with the phone makers.</p><p>Let the carriers compete with the carriers.</p><p>Anyone tries to make a phone with proprietary technology that runs on only one network, let the market tell them where to put their phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is time for the FTC and the FCC to break up the illegal phone/carrier bundling that is so prevalent in the marketplace.If this happened , these lawsuits would n't matter.Let me but a 3G phone and use it on any 3G network.Let me buy a 2.5G phone and use it on any 2.5G network.Let the phone makers compete with the phone makers.Let the carriers compete with the carriers.Anyone tries to make a phone with proprietary technology that runs on only one network , let the market tell them where to put their phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is time for the FTC and the FCC to break up the illegal phone/carrier bundling that is so prevalent in the marketplace.If this happened, these lawsuits wouldn't matter.Let me but a 3G phone and use it on any 3G network.Let me buy a 2.5G phone and use it on any 2.5G network.Let the phone makers compete with the phone makers.Let the carriers compete with the carriers.Anyone tries to make a phone with proprietary technology that runs on only one network, let the market tell them where to put their phones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843289</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>geoskd</author>
	<datestamp>1256240760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Read the press release.  Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades.  Wireless communication is probably not quite as simple as one click shopping.</p></div><p>
One has to ask, what part of that 40B was related to the wireless technology, and what part isn't? I'm going to bet that developing the wireless functionality was a vanishingly small part oft he whole, and that a far larger chunk of money went to developing the phones OS, than to developing the wireless chips, (which by the way, is mostly a function of compute power these days. The amount of bandwidth is directly related to how fast you can get the statistical analysis done. Otherwise, its mostly just little tricks to speed up the process a bit.) More of the R&amp;D money related to the wireless communications has gone into integrating it directly into the phones existing chips to keep the package small than has gone into actual research on the wireless part.
<br>
<br>
-=Geoskd</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the press release .
Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades .
Wireless communication is probably not quite as simple as one click shopping .
One has to ask , what part of that 40B was related to the wireless technology , and what part is n't ?
I 'm going to bet that developing the wireless functionality was a vanishingly small part oft he whole , and that a far larger chunk of money went to developing the phones OS , than to developing the wireless chips , ( which by the way , is mostly a function of compute power these days .
The amount of bandwidth is directly related to how fast you can get the statistical analysis done .
Otherwise , its mostly just little tricks to speed up the process a bit .
) More of the R&amp;D money related to the wireless communications has gone into integrating it directly into the phones existing chips to keep the package small than has gone into actual research on the wireless part .
- = Geoskd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the press release.
Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades.
Wireless communication is probably not quite as simple as one click shopping.
One has to ask, what part of that 40B was related to the wireless technology, and what part isn't?
I'm going to bet that developing the wireless functionality was a vanishingly small part oft he whole, and that a far larger chunk of money went to developing the phones OS, than to developing the wireless chips, (which by the way, is mostly a function of compute power these days.
The amount of bandwidth is directly related to how fast you can get the statistical analysis done.
Otherwise, its mostly just little tricks to speed up the process a bit.
) More of the R&amp;D money related to the wireless communications has gone into integrating it directly into the phones existing chips to keep the package small than has gone into actual research on the wireless part.
-=Geoskd
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838195</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>grimJester</author>
	<datestamp>1256239020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president of Legal &amp; Intellectual Property at Nokia.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, and the basic principle in the IP industry is that those in the cartel establish standards that limit interoperability so that everyone else will have to pay up or be unable to make working devices. I'm Finnish and I don't like Nokias role in destroying the "information society". I accept that it's a broken system and it's the role of governments to fix it while corporations can only exploit it as best as they can. I still wish Nokia could stay outside this patent trolling bullshit. You're Finnish, not American. Cutthroat capitalism is not acceptable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property , which others then need to compensate for , " said Ilkka Rahnasto , vice president of Legal &amp; Intellectual Property at Nokia.Yeah , and the basic principle in the IP industry is that those in the cartel establish standards that limit interoperability so that everyone else will have to pay up or be unable to make working devices .
I 'm Finnish and I do n't like Nokias role in destroying the " information society " .
I accept that it 's a broken system and it 's the role of governments to fix it while corporations can only exploit it as best as they can .
I still wish Nokia could stay outside this patent trolling bullshit .
You 're Finnish , not American .
Cutthroat capitalism is not acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president of Legal &amp; Intellectual Property at Nokia.Yeah, and the basic principle in the IP industry is that those in the cartel establish standards that limit interoperability so that everyone else will have to pay up or be unable to make working devices.
I'm Finnish and I don't like Nokias role in destroying the "information society".
I accept that it's a broken system and it's the role of governments to fix it while corporations can only exploit it as best as they can.
I still wish Nokia could stay outside this patent trolling bullshit.
You're Finnish, not American.
Cutthroat capitalism is not acceptable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843743</id>
	<title>Re:Two way street</title>
	<author>unwastaken</author>
	<datestamp>1256292300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple bad, Nokia good when we are talking about mobil phones. Nokias N900 has great <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/356825/" title="lwn.net" rel="nofollow">Linux Comunity</a> [lwn.net], and they are writing a <b>Free cell</b> phone communication stack <a href="http://ofono.org/" title="ofono.org" rel="nofollow">ofono</a> [ofono.org].</p></div><p>I had to read this a couple times, trying to figure out why an open sourced <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freecell" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">free cell</a> [wikipedia.org] implementation on a phone would get you so excited.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple bad , Nokia good when we are talking about mobil phones .
Nokias N900 has great Linux Comunity [ lwn.net ] , and they are writing a Free cell phone communication stack ofono [ ofono.org ] .I had to read this a couple times , trying to figure out why an open sourced free cell [ wikipedia.org ] implementation on a phone would get you so excited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple bad, Nokia good when we are talking about mobil phones.
Nokias N900 has great Linux Comunity [lwn.net], and they are writing a Free cell phone communication stack ofono [ofono.org].I had to read this a couple times, trying to figure out why an open sourced free cell [wikipedia.org] implementation on a phone would get you so excited.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29861023</id>
	<title>Re:how dare they are</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256390700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, because if he did, it would have been named the iPhone. oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , because if he did , it would have been named the iPhone .
oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, because if he did, it would have been named the iPhone.
oh, wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275</id>
	<title>not surprising</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1256239380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's R&amp;D investment is far below industry average, and most of that is "D", not "R".  Apple essentially doesn't publish and doesn't support university research.  If all companies were as stingy as Apple when it comes to R&amp;D, computer science research would be in deep trouble.  Nokia, on the other hand, has the largest R&amp;D investment in Europe, many times that of Apple.</p><p>Apple can only make nice products because other companies and universities have invested a hell of a lot of money and time inventing the things that Apple then assembles into products.  That model is not sustainable, and I can see why companies like Nokia are getting litigious over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's R&amp;D investment is far below industry average , and most of that is " D " , not " R " .
Apple essentially does n't publish and does n't support university research .
If all companies were as stingy as Apple when it comes to R&amp;D , computer science research would be in deep trouble .
Nokia , on the other hand , has the largest R&amp;D investment in Europe , many times that of Apple.Apple can only make nice products because other companies and universities have invested a hell of a lot of money and time inventing the things that Apple then assembles into products .
That model is not sustainable , and I can see why companies like Nokia are getting litigious over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's R&amp;D investment is far below industry average, and most of that is "D", not "R".
Apple essentially doesn't publish and doesn't support university research.
If all companies were as stingy as Apple when it comes to R&amp;D, computer science research would be in deep trouble.
Nokia, on the other hand, has the largest R&amp;D investment in Europe, many times that of Apple.Apple can only make nice products because other companies and universities have invested a hell of a lot of money and time inventing the things that Apple then assembles into products.
That model is not sustainable, and I can see why companies like Nokia are getting litigious over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837315</id>
	<title>Re:Two way street</title>
	<author>emj</author>
	<datestamp>1256235720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple bad, Nokia good when we are talking about mobil phones. Nokias N900 has great <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/356825/" title="lwn.net">Linux Comunity</a> [lwn.net], and they are writing a Free cell phone communication stack <a href="http://ofono.org/" title="ofono.org">ofono</a> [ofono.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple bad , Nokia good when we are talking about mobil phones .
Nokias N900 has great Linux Comunity [ lwn.net ] , and they are writing a Free cell phone communication stack ofono [ ofono.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple bad, Nokia good when we are talking about mobil phones.
Nokias N900 has great Linux Comunity [lwn.net], and they are writing a Free cell phone communication stack ofono [ofono.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838565</id>
	<title>Apple makes chips?</title>
	<author>cadience</author>
	<datestamp>1256241000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this stuff is hardware, are you telling me that Apple has fabricated the chips for this?  Not impossible, but seems unlikely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this stuff is hardware , are you telling me that Apple has fabricated the chips for this ?
Not impossible , but seems unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this stuff is hardware, are you telling me that Apple has fabricated the chips for this?
Not impossible, but seems unlikely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837351</id>
	<title>There's That Progress in Science &amp; the Useful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256235840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Nokia couldn't sue Apple, they certainly wouldn't have developed the technology to make phones they could sell. They certainly need longer than a year to break even on their investment before Apple could use the tech to sell more phones to the public. There's no way Apple and Nokia would work together to develop a technology they could both use in their phones, if their competitors could use it after several months work adapting it to their own products. Patents must be granted for any length of time, no matter how much profit that "temporary" artificial government-enforced monopoly makes while locking the invention out from use by the maximum number of people.</p><p>Right? No, that doesn't seem right to me, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Nokia could n't sue Apple , they certainly would n't have developed the technology to make phones they could sell .
They certainly need longer than a year to break even on their investment before Apple could use the tech to sell more phones to the public .
There 's no way Apple and Nokia would work together to develop a technology they could both use in their phones , if their competitors could use it after several months work adapting it to their own products .
Patents must be granted for any length of time , no matter how much profit that " temporary " artificial government-enforced monopoly makes while locking the invention out from use by the maximum number of people.Right ?
No , that does n't seem right to me , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Nokia couldn't sue Apple, they certainly wouldn't have developed the technology to make phones they could sell.
They certainly need longer than a year to break even on their investment before Apple could use the tech to sell more phones to the public.
There's no way Apple and Nokia would work together to develop a technology they could both use in their phones, if their competitors could use it after several months work adapting it to their own products.
Patents must be granted for any length of time, no matter how much profit that "temporary" artificial government-enforced monopoly makes while locking the invention out from use by the maximum number of people.Right?
No, that doesn't seem right to me, either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197</id>
	<title>I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256235240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are standards based on patented technology?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are standards based on patented technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are standards based on patented technology?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839905</id>
	<title>Re:Those 40 other... losers?</title>
	<author>Karlt1</author>
	<datestamp>1256204640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>True, best comparator would be net revenue I think; Nokia makes a lot more than Apple. Honestly, neither company could buy the other (outside a heavily leveraged buyout).</p></div></blockquote><p>Net Revenue is called <i>profit</i>.</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:NOK&amp;fstype=ii" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:NOK&amp;fstype=ii</a> [google.com]</p><p>Nokia's net income last reported quarter -  559 Million EUR loss ($838 Million US)<br>Apple's net income last quarter - $1,229 Million (GAAP) $2,855 Million (Non GAAP)</p><p>Nokia's market cap - $49.38 Billion<br>Apple's cash on hand - $35.171  Billion</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , best comparator would be net revenue I think ; Nokia makes a lot more than Apple .
Honestly , neither company could buy the other ( outside a heavily leveraged buyout ) .Net Revenue is called profit.http : //www.google.com/finance ? q = NYSE : NOK&amp;fstype = ii [ google.com ] Nokia 's net income last reported quarter - 559 Million EUR loss ( $ 838 Million US ) Apple 's net income last quarter - $ 1,229 Million ( GAAP ) $ 2,855 Million ( Non GAAP ) Nokia 's market cap - $ 49.38 BillionApple 's cash on hand - $ 35.171 Billion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, best comparator would be net revenue I think; Nokia makes a lot more than Apple.
Honestly, neither company could buy the other (outside a heavily leveraged buyout).Net Revenue is called profit.http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:NOK&amp;fstype=ii [google.com]Nokia's net income last reported quarter -  559 Million EUR loss ($838 Million US)Apple's net income last quarter - $1,229 Million (GAAP) $2,855 Million (Non GAAP)Nokia's market cap - $49.38 BillionApple's cash on hand - $35.171  Billion
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838265</id>
	<title>Why are people this much against patents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256239380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seeing all the replies here, I am left wondering why people hate patents so much.<br>Most of the innovation in the western world is due to patents.<br>I am from India, and by reading through the old classics an myth texts (we have a lot), it is immediately obvious why patents are required. There are so many instances of technologies no longer in use because the family which had the technology died out.<br>Even now, it is a problem here. Due to the lack of belief in patent system, even now, people try to keep secrets hidden from competitors.</p><p>One example is an ayurveda doctor - whose grandfather has come up with a medicine which can completely cure jaundice. My family has first hand experience - my cousin had extremely high jaundice - bilirubin count was near 18mg/dL. Doctors had almost given up, when we took him to this person. He gave one set of medicine to eat one day a week for 3 weeks - in a week it decreased to 6 and by the end of the course he was completely back up. This is not a single occurrence and this fellow is the first person to whom everyone in our place go whenever somebody has jaundice.</p><p>Now, this fellow keeps this medicine a secret - since for the last 3 generations, their livelihood depended on that. After maybe 100-200 years this medicine also will be lost to the world. More than that no progress can be expected since researchers do not know the exact composition to extract the exact chemicals to solve more issues.</p><p>With a properly functioning patent system, all these can be avoided. I agree that sometimes it might be misused, but if the whole concept of patent is not there, the only progress that can be expected is through research schools. We are effectively shutting out &gt;95\% of the population from doing research by removing the remuneration possibilities.</p><p>Even taking my personal case, I have left my job and is doing research (alone) full time - I have already filed for 5 patents, and I have three more in pipeline. I believe my ideas are going to change the world in a non-insignificant manner, if my research finds a method to implement it. Do you think I would do this if I do not have the safety net that patent provides? Inventors has to provide for their families too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing all the replies here , I am left wondering why people hate patents so much.Most of the innovation in the western world is due to patents.I am from India , and by reading through the old classics an myth texts ( we have a lot ) , it is immediately obvious why patents are required .
There are so many instances of technologies no longer in use because the family which had the technology died out.Even now , it is a problem here .
Due to the lack of belief in patent system , even now , people try to keep secrets hidden from competitors.One example is an ayurveda doctor - whose grandfather has come up with a medicine which can completely cure jaundice .
My family has first hand experience - my cousin had extremely high jaundice - bilirubin count was near 18mg/dL .
Doctors had almost given up , when we took him to this person .
He gave one set of medicine to eat one day a week for 3 weeks - in a week it decreased to 6 and by the end of the course he was completely back up .
This is not a single occurrence and this fellow is the first person to whom everyone in our place go whenever somebody has jaundice.Now , this fellow keeps this medicine a secret - since for the last 3 generations , their livelihood depended on that .
After maybe 100-200 years this medicine also will be lost to the world .
More than that no progress can be expected since researchers do not know the exact composition to extract the exact chemicals to solve more issues.With a properly functioning patent system , all these can be avoided .
I agree that sometimes it might be misused , but if the whole concept of patent is not there , the only progress that can be expected is through research schools .
We are effectively shutting out &gt; 95 \ % of the population from doing research by removing the remuneration possibilities.Even taking my personal case , I have left my job and is doing research ( alone ) full time - I have already filed for 5 patents , and I have three more in pipeline .
I believe my ideas are going to change the world in a non-insignificant manner , if my research finds a method to implement it .
Do you think I would do this if I do not have the safety net that patent provides ?
Inventors has to provide for their families too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing all the replies here, I am left wondering why people hate patents so much.Most of the innovation in the western world is due to patents.I am from India, and by reading through the old classics an myth texts (we have a lot), it is immediately obvious why patents are required.
There are so many instances of technologies no longer in use because the family which had the technology died out.Even now, it is a problem here.
Due to the lack of belief in patent system, even now, people try to keep secrets hidden from competitors.One example is an ayurveda doctor - whose grandfather has come up with a medicine which can completely cure jaundice.
My family has first hand experience - my cousin had extremely high jaundice - bilirubin count was near 18mg/dL.
Doctors had almost given up, when we took him to this person.
He gave one set of medicine to eat one day a week for 3 weeks - in a week it decreased to 6 and by the end of the course he was completely back up.
This is not a single occurrence and this fellow is the first person to whom everyone in our place go whenever somebody has jaundice.Now, this fellow keeps this medicine a secret - since for the last 3 generations, their livelihood depended on that.
After maybe 100-200 years this medicine also will be lost to the world.
More than that no progress can be expected since researchers do not know the exact composition to extract the exact chemicals to solve more issues.With a properly functioning patent system, all these can be avoided.
I agree that sometimes it might be misused, but if the whole concept of patent is not there, the only progress that can be expected is through research schools.
We are effectively shutting out &gt;95\% of the population from doing research by removing the remuneration possibilities.Even taking my personal case, I have left my job and is doing research (alone) full time - I have already filed for 5 patents, and I have three more in pipeline.
I believe my ideas are going to change the world in a non-insignificant manner, if my research finds a method to implement it.
Do you think I would do this if I do not have the safety net that patent provides?
Inventors has to provide for their families too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839203</id>
	<title>Re:not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256244180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are so full of bullshit. Support university research eh? Out of the goodness of their hearts I presume. And of course they do real "R" for the benefit of mankind no doubt.</p><p>What about European research programs which, by the way, are funded with the money of European citizens? With how many of those programs is Nokia involved? What kind of research comes out of those programs? Is it really "R"?</p><p>At least Apple tries to concentrate on "D" of their products without trying to pass it as "R".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are so full of bullshit .
Support university research eh ?
Out of the goodness of their hearts I presume .
And of course they do real " R " for the benefit of mankind no doubt.What about European research programs which , by the way , are funded with the money of European citizens ?
With how many of those programs is Nokia involved ?
What kind of research comes out of those programs ?
Is it really " R " ? At least Apple tries to concentrate on " D " of their products without trying to pass it as " R " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are so full of bullshit.
Support university research eh?
Out of the goodness of their hearts I presume.
And of course they do real "R" for the benefit of mankind no doubt.What about European research programs which, by the way, are funded with the money of European citizens?
With how many of those programs is Nokia involved?
What kind of research comes out of those programs?
Is it really "R"?At least Apple tries to concentrate on "D" of their products without trying to pass it as "R".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837701</id>
	<title>Re:Presumed guilty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256237100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since nearly every other cell phone maker has licensed these patents and Apple was negotiating to license them chances are pretty good Nokia's claim is valid.  Don't think it has much to do with Slashdot bias.</p><p>Presumably Nokia's licensing terms were unreasonable to Apple,  this is just escalation of the "negotiating" process by one side or the other, Nokia thinks they will win and get more cash than Apple was offering in the negotiation, or maybe even Apple thought they will do better in court or with a counter suit over other patents so they provoked Nokia in to this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since nearly every other cell phone maker has licensed these patents and Apple was negotiating to license them chances are pretty good Nokia 's claim is valid .
Do n't think it has much to do with Slashdot bias.Presumably Nokia 's licensing terms were unreasonable to Apple , this is just escalation of the " negotiating " process by one side or the other , Nokia thinks they will win and get more cash than Apple was offering in the negotiation , or maybe even Apple thought they will do better in court or with a counter suit over other patents so they provoked Nokia in to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since nearly every other cell phone maker has licensed these patents and Apple was negotiating to license them chances are pretty good Nokia's claim is valid.
Don't think it has much to do with Slashdot bias.Presumably Nokia's licensing terms were unreasonable to Apple,  this is just escalation of the "negotiating" process by one side or the other, Nokia thinks they will win and get more cash than Apple was offering in the negotiation, or maybe even Apple thought they will do better in court or with a counter suit over other patents so they provoked Nokia in to this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839253</id>
	<title>Nokia Joke</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1256244360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Q: Whats the difference between Nokia and Concorde.<br> <br>
A: Nothing. Both are foriegn(to the US) companies that make(or made) innovative products based on their own R&amp;D. Both were(and are) being lobbied out of the US market. Concorde had its noise issue laws bought in specifically for it, Nokia is not a prefered provider.
 <br> <br> Thats where the real battle front is for Nokia, and Apple is well postioned to bend ears in Washington.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Q : Whats the difference between Nokia and Concorde .
A : Nothing .
Both are foriegn ( to the US ) companies that make ( or made ) innovative products based on their own R&amp;D .
Both were ( and are ) being lobbied out of the US market .
Concorde had its noise issue laws bought in specifically for it , Nokia is not a prefered provider .
Thats where the real battle front is for Nokia , and Apple is well postioned to bend ears in Washington .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q: Whats the difference between Nokia and Concorde.
A: Nothing.
Both are foriegn(to the US) companies that make(or made) innovative products based on their own R&amp;D.
Both were(and are) being lobbied out of the US market.
Concorde had its noise issue laws bought in specifically for it, Nokia is not a prefered provider.
Thats where the real battle front is for Nokia, and Apple is well postioned to bend ears in Washington.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838021</id>
	<title>Interface patents.</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1256238300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple has a lot of patents on basic UI. They have for decades. Thankfully Apple is historically not a terribly litigious company (there are exceptions). But I'm certain that in todays patent system they have plenty of ammo against Nokia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has a lot of patents on basic UI .
They have for decades .
Thankfully Apple is historically not a terribly litigious company ( there are exceptions ) .
But I 'm certain that in todays patent system they have plenty of ammo against Nokia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has a lot of patents on basic UI.
They have for decades.
Thankfully Apple is historically not a terribly litigious company (there are exceptions).
But I'm certain that in todays patent system they have plenty of ammo against Nokia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29860579</id>
	<title>Re:how dare they are</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1256386080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you will love BB.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you will love BB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you will love BB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837495</id>
	<title>Re:Two way street</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256236380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is largely the point; phone companies gather 100s of patents that cover every aspect of their phones. These patents are often so broad that courts will not uphold them or will force them to be narrowed.</p><p>Still, the lawyers use these patents as a sort of negotiation tool. In this and many other industries, patent lawyers aren't lawyers as much as strategists; for all we know, Nokia is doing this as a defensive method because they know they are infringing on some Apple IP. Or, perhaps, they want some cool multitouch features in their next phone.</p><p>See this article for a fascinating analysis of Apple and Palm's patent war:<br><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/" title="engadget.com">http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/</a> [engadget.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is largely the point ; phone companies gather 100s of patents that cover every aspect of their phones .
These patents are often so broad that courts will not uphold them or will force them to be narrowed.Still , the lawyers use these patents as a sort of negotiation tool .
In this and many other industries , patent lawyers are n't lawyers as much as strategists ; for all we know , Nokia is doing this as a defensive method because they know they are infringing on some Apple IP .
Or , perhaps , they want some cool multitouch features in their next phone.See this article for a fascinating analysis of Apple and Palm 's patent war : http : //www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/ [ engadget.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is largely the point; phone companies gather 100s of patents that cover every aspect of their phones.
These patents are often so broad that courts will not uphold them or will force them to be narrowed.Still, the lawyers use these patents as a sort of negotiation tool.
In this and many other industries, patent lawyers aren't lawyers as much as strategists; for all we know, Nokia is doing this as a defensive method because they know they are infringing on some Apple IP.
Or, perhaps, they want some cool multitouch features in their next phone.See this article for a fascinating analysis of Apple and Palm's patent war:http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/ [engadget.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838729</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256241780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, but your post is comment trolling...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but your post is comment trolling.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but your post is comment trolling...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838661</id>
	<title>Re:Presumed guilty</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1256241480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who reads your text as "the lawyers at Nokia and Apple think they can make more money by going to court"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who reads your text as " the lawyers at Nokia and Apple think they can make more money by going to court " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who reads your text as "the lawyers at Nokia and Apple think they can make more money by going to court"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837953</id>
	<title>Re:There's That Progress in Science &amp; the Usef</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256238060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Nokia's phones had to compete with phones made by people who didn't spend large amounts on R&amp;D and just copied the technology, would they still be profitable enough to keep spending money on R&amp;D?  The point of the patent system is to reward companies that spend the money to develop technologies and, by extension, penalise those that don't.  Apple produced a product using Nokia's research, competing with Nokia.  Sounds like a fairly clear-cut case of the patent system doing the right thing, to me.  Of course, Apple is free to devote some R&amp;D resources to future mobile standards, and then they can avoid the license fees by putting up some equally valuable research for cross-licensing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Nokia 's phones had to compete with phones made by people who did n't spend large amounts on R&amp;D and just copied the technology , would they still be profitable enough to keep spending money on R&amp;D ?
The point of the patent system is to reward companies that spend the money to develop technologies and , by extension , penalise those that do n't .
Apple produced a product using Nokia 's research , competing with Nokia .
Sounds like a fairly clear-cut case of the patent system doing the right thing , to me .
Of course , Apple is free to devote some R&amp;D resources to future mobile standards , and then they can avoid the license fees by putting up some equally valuable research for cross-licensing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Nokia's phones had to compete with phones made by people who didn't spend large amounts on R&amp;D and just copied the technology, would they still be profitable enough to keep spending money on R&amp;D?
The point of the patent system is to reward companies that spend the money to develop technologies and, by extension, penalise those that don't.
Apple produced a product using Nokia's research, competing with Nokia.
Sounds like a fairly clear-cut case of the patent system doing the right thing, to me.
Of course, Apple is free to devote some R&amp;D resources to future mobile standards, and then they can avoid the license fees by putting up some equally valuable research for cross-licensing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837525</id>
	<title>Re:Two way street</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1256236500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symbian is such a primitive operating system I doubt its possible for it to infringe any patent that didn't expire 10 years ago.</p><p>Qt on the other hand, that one is almost certain to be violating some patents, I wonder if it infringes on any Apple font patents.</p><p>You can guess where this is probably heading it will grind through courts and backroom negotiations for years, they will either settle out of court and cross license patents, or maybe Apple will have to throw Nokia some cash.  They have more than $30 billion in cash reserves if memory serves, almost as much as Microsoft so I doubt it will put much of a dent in their bank account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symbian is such a primitive operating system I doubt its possible for it to infringe any patent that did n't expire 10 years ago.Qt on the other hand , that one is almost certain to be violating some patents , I wonder if it infringes on any Apple font patents.You can guess where this is probably heading it will grind through courts and backroom negotiations for years , they will either settle out of court and cross license patents , or maybe Apple will have to throw Nokia some cash .
They have more than $ 30 billion in cash reserves if memory serves , almost as much as Microsoft so I doubt it will put much of a dent in their bank account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symbian is such a primitive operating system I doubt its possible for it to infringe any patent that didn't expire 10 years ago.Qt on the other hand, that one is almost certain to be violating some patents, I wonder if it infringes on any Apple font patents.You can guess where this is probably heading it will grind through courts and backroom negotiations for years, they will either settle out of court and cross license patents, or maybe Apple will have to throw Nokia some cash.
They have more than $30 billion in cash reserves if memory serves, almost as much as Microsoft so I doubt it will put much of a dent in their bank account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838855</id>
	<title>Re:Those 40 other... losers?</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1256242380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What does Market Cap have to do with anything? Market cap is nothing more than the perceived value of the company by the public based on the value of its stock. Apple is on a hot streak right now. Also, those other companies are going to be Sony Ericcson, Motorola, HTC, Palm, Qualcomm, etc...</i>
<br>
<br>
True, best comparator would be net revenue I think; Nokia makes a lot more than Apple.  Honestly, neither company could buy the other (outside a heavily leveraged buyout).</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does Market Cap have to do with anything ?
Market cap is nothing more than the perceived value of the company by the public based on the value of its stock .
Apple is on a hot streak right now .
Also , those other companies are going to be Sony Ericcson , Motorola , HTC , Palm , Qualcomm , etc.. . True , best comparator would be net revenue I think ; Nokia makes a lot more than Apple .
Honestly , neither company could buy the other ( outside a heavily leveraged buyout ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does Market Cap have to do with anything?
Market cap is nothing more than the perceived value of the company by the public based on the value of its stock.
Apple is on a hot streak right now.
Also, those other companies are going to be Sony Ericcson, Motorola, HTC, Palm, Qualcomm, etc...


True, best comparator would be net revenue I think; Nokia makes a lot more than Apple.
Honestly, neither company could buy the other (outside a heavily leveraged buyout).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837613</id>
	<title>What else is new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256236860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't beat them.... SUE THEM...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't beat them.... SUE THEM.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't beat them.... SUE THEM...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837967</id>
	<title>Wait....</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1256238060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought we hated Apple here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. Isn't Nokia our OSS sugar mama? Oh wait, their both evil!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we hated Apple here on / .
Is n't Nokia our OSS sugar mama ?
Oh wait , their both evil !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we hated Apple here on /.
Isn't Nokia our OSS sugar mama?
Oh wait, their both evil!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841801</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to do with software !!</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1256217240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Due to the fact that any patents are only valid in some markets, it is always up to the manufacturer of the end product to license the patents they need for each market the device is sold in.  Component suppliers never include patent royalties in the cost of the component unless it is patents that they themselves own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to the fact that any patents are only valid in some markets , it is always up to the manufacturer of the end product to license the patents they need for each market the device is sold in .
Component suppliers never include patent royalties in the cost of the component unless it is patents that they themselves own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Due to the fact that any patents are only valid in some markets, it is always up to the manufacturer of the end product to license the patents they need for each market the device is sold in.
Component suppliers never include patent royalties in the cost of the component unless it is patents that they themselves own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29860517</id>
	<title>Re:Those 40 other... losers?</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1256385480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait a second. With the recently moved out networks division Nokia's revenue was 50bn Euros for 2008 and Apple Inc's was 39bn US Dollars. I believe your comparisons based on current share price are dead wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a second .
With the recently moved out networks division Nokia 's revenue was 50bn Euros for 2008 and Apple Inc 's was 39bn US Dollars .
I believe your comparisons based on current share price are dead wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a second.
With the recently moved out networks division Nokia's revenue was 50bn Euros for 2008 and Apple Inc's was 39bn US Dollars.
I believe your comparisons based on current share price are dead wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839145</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to do with software !!</title>
	<author>Drathos</author>
	<datestamp>1256243880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Granted, I don't know all the details, but the info I've seen about this makes it sound like these are all related to GSM, UTMS, and WiFi hardware.  Since Apple does not produce this hardware themselves, why should they be responsible for licensing this from Nokia?  The actual manufacturer of the related hardware (Broadcom and Infineon, IIRC) should be responsible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Granted , I do n't know all the details , but the info I 've seen about this makes it sound like these are all related to GSM , UTMS , and WiFi hardware .
Since Apple does not produce this hardware themselves , why should they be responsible for licensing this from Nokia ?
The actual manufacturer of the related hardware ( Broadcom and Infineon , IIRC ) should be responsible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Granted, I don't know all the details, but the info I've seen about this makes it sound like these are all related to GSM, UTMS, and WiFi hardware.
Since Apple does not produce this hardware themselves, why should they be responsible for licensing this from Nokia?
The actual manufacturer of the related hardware (Broadcom and Infineon, IIRC) should be responsible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838913</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1256242680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple doesn't make the chip, only the case holding it and the software using it.</p><p>Dell doesn't make the chip, only the netbook with an integrated GSM adapter and Microsoft's OS and someone else's drivers using it.  They're not paying nokia either, but yet, no lawsuit there?</p><p>Also, $40B is not what was paid on designing the GSM system, that's what was paid for its complete deployment, plus some finance magic to make the number much bigger...  What is relevent only is:</p><p>A) is apple a direct or indirect infringer on the patents?  B) Was Apple aware if they are a direct infringer? (and if not, was due dillegence documented completely).  C) If they are found in WILLFUL violation, or if the violation was brought to their attention and they made no reasonable offer for comensation, what is the "fair" royalty (typically defined by a slightly higher than average royalty based on the royalty collected from all other payers).</p><p>If Apple is knowingly and willfully infringing, even prior to nokia getting involved directly (we doubt that unless Apple's patent lawyers felt thaey had a GREAT case getting the patent overturned, but if they did, they would have already started that process), then the penalty will be about 10 times the license cost, maybe a lot more.  If they unknowingly infringed (after thorough and well documented discovvery and due dilligence, which apple is known to be one of the best in the world at), and they eventual even up in discussion with nokia, they'll be ordered to pay between a fair rate, and 3 times the rate tops.  If nokia's patents get thrown out, Apple wins a legal payment for their expensive lawyers from nokia, and likely a countersuit for defamation, and nokia looses several strong patents they use as leverage to collect large royalties (which everyone else can also immediately stop paying).</p><p>Given Apple's history of successful defence and strong due dillegence processes, Nokia might at best earn what apple is offering plus a small sum, minus their likely much larger legal fees (net loss vs apple's offer), or they'll loose a lot of money and some patents (and maybe other non-enforces but related patents too).  This is not a good plan for nokia unless that have a GREAT case against apple they're not talking about (which they would be).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does n't make the chip , only the case holding it and the software using it.Dell does n't make the chip , only the netbook with an integrated GSM adapter and Microsoft 's OS and someone else 's drivers using it .
They 're not paying nokia either , but yet , no lawsuit there ? Also , $ 40B is not what was paid on designing the GSM system , that 's what was paid for its complete deployment , plus some finance magic to make the number much bigger... What is relevent only is : A ) is apple a direct or indirect infringer on the patents ?
B ) Was Apple aware if they are a direct infringer ?
( and if not , was due dillegence documented completely ) .
C ) If they are found in WILLFUL violation , or if the violation was brought to their attention and they made no reasonable offer for comensation , what is the " fair " royalty ( typically defined by a slightly higher than average royalty based on the royalty collected from all other payers ) .If Apple is knowingly and willfully infringing , even prior to nokia getting involved directly ( we doubt that unless Apple 's patent lawyers felt thaey had a GREAT case getting the patent overturned , but if they did , they would have already started that process ) , then the penalty will be about 10 times the license cost , maybe a lot more .
If they unknowingly infringed ( after thorough and well documented discovvery and due dilligence , which apple is known to be one of the best in the world at ) , and they eventual even up in discussion with nokia , they 'll be ordered to pay between a fair rate , and 3 times the rate tops .
If nokia 's patents get thrown out , Apple wins a legal payment for their expensive lawyers from nokia , and likely a countersuit for defamation , and nokia looses several strong patents they use as leverage to collect large royalties ( which everyone else can also immediately stop paying ) .Given Apple 's history of successful defence and strong due dillegence processes , Nokia might at best earn what apple is offering plus a small sum , minus their likely much larger legal fees ( net loss vs apple 's offer ) , or they 'll loose a lot of money and some patents ( and maybe other non-enforces but related patents too ) .
This is not a good plan for nokia unless that have a GREAT case against apple they 're not talking about ( which they would be ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple doesn't make the chip, only the case holding it and the software using it.Dell doesn't make the chip, only the netbook with an integrated GSM adapter and Microsoft's OS and someone else's drivers using it.
They're not paying nokia either, but yet, no lawsuit there?Also, $40B is not what was paid on designing the GSM system, that's what was paid for its complete deployment, plus some finance magic to make the number much bigger...  What is relevent only is:A) is apple a direct or indirect infringer on the patents?
B) Was Apple aware if they are a direct infringer?
(and if not, was due dillegence documented completely).
C) If they are found in WILLFUL violation, or if the violation was brought to their attention and they made no reasonable offer for comensation, what is the "fair" royalty (typically defined by a slightly higher than average royalty based on the royalty collected from all other payers).If Apple is knowingly and willfully infringing, even prior to nokia getting involved directly (we doubt that unless Apple's patent lawyers felt thaey had a GREAT case getting the patent overturned, but if they did, they would have already started that process), then the penalty will be about 10 times the license cost, maybe a lot more.
If they unknowingly infringed (after thorough and well documented discovvery and due dilligence, which apple is known to be one of the best in the world at), and they eventual even up in discussion with nokia, they'll be ordered to pay between a fair rate, and 3 times the rate tops.
If nokia's patents get thrown out, Apple wins a legal payment for their expensive lawyers from nokia, and likely a countersuit for defamation, and nokia looses several strong patents they use as leverage to collect large royalties (which everyone else can also immediately stop paying).Given Apple's history of successful defence and strong due dillegence processes, Nokia might at best earn what apple is offering plus a small sum, minus their likely much larger legal fees (net loss vs apple's offer), or they'll loose a lot of money and some patents (and maybe other non-enforces but related patents too).
This is not a good plan for nokia unless that have a GREAT case against apple they're not talking about (which they would be).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838563</id>
	<title>Re:Presumed guilty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256240940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nokia has been making mobile phones since they were the size of a large brick.  And created or co-created much of the basic hardware technology used in mobile phones today...</p><p>I think i'll believe them when they say they invented and patented a bunch of hardware that apple swiped without proper payment.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia</p><p>In todays world they are a pretty straight dealing stand up company.   (compared to most others)</p><p>If they say apple ripped them off.  Apple most likely did.</p><p>Hey..  see what not screwing people over and not ripping everyone off gets you?   People believe you when it's important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has been making mobile phones since they were the size of a large brick .
And created or co-created much of the basic hardware technology used in mobile phones today...I think i 'll believe them when they say they invented and patented a bunch of hardware that apple swiped without proper payment.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NokiaIn todays world they are a pretty straight dealing stand up company .
( compared to most others ) If they say apple ripped them off .
Apple most likely did.Hey.. see what not screwing people over and not ripping everyone off gets you ?
People believe you when it 's important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has been making mobile phones since they were the size of a large brick.
And created or co-created much of the basic hardware technology used in mobile phones today...I think i'll believe them when they say they invented and patented a bunch of hardware that apple swiped without proper payment.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NokiaIn todays world they are a pretty straight dealing stand up company.
(compared to most others)If they say apple ripped them off.
Apple most likely did.Hey..  see what not screwing people over and not ripping everyone off gets you?
People believe you when it's important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29845083</id>
	<title>Re:not surprising</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1256307180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice try there troll, but it doesn't hold water.  Ever heard of Firewire?  Or that now light wave connector in the news a couple of weeks ago?  Or how about all the innovation involved in creating the industry leading computer hardware designs.  Sorry, but you're full of shit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice try there troll , but it does n't hold water .
Ever heard of Firewire ?
Or that now light wave connector in the news a couple of weeks ago ?
Or how about all the innovation involved in creating the industry leading computer hardware designs .
Sorry , but you 're full of shit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice try there troll, but it doesn't hold water.
Ever heard of Firewire?
Or that now light wave connector in the news a couple of weeks ago?
Or how about all the innovation involved in creating the industry leading computer hardware designs.
Sorry, but you're full of shit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837879</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>Kirin Fenrir</author>
	<datestamp>1256237760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was making a (poor) joke.  Seemed much funnier at the time.<br> <br>
Comedy is a fickle mistress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was making a ( poor ) joke .
Seemed much funnier at the time .
Comedy is a fickle mistress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was making a (poor) joke.
Seemed much funnier at the time.
Comedy is a fickle mistress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838263</id>
	<title>how dare they are</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256239380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Steve Jobs is the one who invented cell phones,</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs is the one who invented cell phones,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs is the one who invented cell phones,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838399</id>
	<title>Maybe Nokia doesn't want $$</title>
	<author>kmahan</author>
	<datestamp>1256240040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe in the case of Apple Nokia isn't trying for financial licensing, but something like an agreement to cross license patents -- so that Nokia would get access to Apple's patents.</p><p>I could see why Apple wouldn't want to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe in the case of Apple Nokia is n't trying for financial licensing , but something like an agreement to cross license patents -- so that Nokia would get access to Apple 's patents.I could see why Apple would n't want to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe in the case of Apple Nokia isn't trying for financial licensing, but something like an agreement to cross license patents -- so that Nokia would get access to Apple's patents.I could see why Apple wouldn't want to do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837827</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1256237580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because standards that lag current technology by 17 years would go unused anyway?  So instead of having to interoperate with one system and therefore needing to pay royalties to one group of patent-holders, any device manufacturer would have to either (1) play to a niche market, or (2) address the fragmented market by interoperating with many systems that each work differently, therefore needing to pay royalties to many groups of patent-holders?</p><p>Your question is reasonable when applied to standards that cover doing things <i>for which there are alternatives unburdened by patents</i>.  In many areas (such as wireless telecommunications) that is not the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because standards that lag current technology by 17 years would go unused anyway ?
So instead of having to interoperate with one system and therefore needing to pay royalties to one group of patent-holders , any device manufacturer would have to either ( 1 ) play to a niche market , or ( 2 ) address the fragmented market by interoperating with many systems that each work differently , therefore needing to pay royalties to many groups of patent-holders ? Your question is reasonable when applied to standards that cover doing things for which there are alternatives unburdened by patents .
In many areas ( such as wireless telecommunications ) that is not the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because standards that lag current technology by 17 years would go unused anyway?
So instead of having to interoperate with one system and therefore needing to pay royalties to one group of patent-holders, any device manufacturer would have to either (1) play to a niche market, or (2) address the fragmented market by interoperating with many systems that each work differently, therefore needing to pay royalties to many groups of patent-holders?Your question is reasonable when applied to standards that cover doing things for which there are alternatives unburdened by patents.
In many areas (such as wireless telecommunications) that is not the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841193</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256212380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on the patents really, and how they are supposed to be licensed. It isn't cut and dry that Nokia's claim against Apple is 100\% valid, or even that it is invalid. Us spectators just don't know, and make leaps of logic to say one thing or another.</p><p>If Apple is buying these parts off the shelf, and the manufacturer of these parts is paying the license fee, why is Apple required to pay up as well? If Nokia isn't making the parts manufacturer pay for the per-unit license, it seems like a bit of oversight on their part and adds complexity to licensing.</p><p>And what about the IEEE in this? They ratify the 802.11 standards, so why is there a second licensing channel for the WiFi bits that someone has to go through? (I've not delved into who maintains control over GSM and UMTS, so I can't speak to that)</p><p>Obviously there was some negotiation going on for licensing prior to the lawsuit. What happened to make them break down? Was Apple just refusing to pay, or did Nokia think they could maybe get higher fees from Apple by threatening the suit if they didn't accept their specific terms (trying to force an agreement more favorable to Nokia on the idea that Apple was already infringing).</p><p>I don't think Nokia is patent trolling, but I'm not sure everyone who wonders WTF is up with Nokia thinks they are either. I find this a big WTF because I thought these technologies would be open standards with fairly standardized licensing procedures. What caused the break down here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on the patents really , and how they are supposed to be licensed .
It is n't cut and dry that Nokia 's claim against Apple is 100 \ % valid , or even that it is invalid .
Us spectators just do n't know , and make leaps of logic to say one thing or another.If Apple is buying these parts off the shelf , and the manufacturer of these parts is paying the license fee , why is Apple required to pay up as well ?
If Nokia is n't making the parts manufacturer pay for the per-unit license , it seems like a bit of oversight on their part and adds complexity to licensing.And what about the IEEE in this ?
They ratify the 802.11 standards , so why is there a second licensing channel for the WiFi bits that someone has to go through ?
( I 've not delved into who maintains control over GSM and UMTS , so I ca n't speak to that ) Obviously there was some negotiation going on for licensing prior to the lawsuit .
What happened to make them break down ?
Was Apple just refusing to pay , or did Nokia think they could maybe get higher fees from Apple by threatening the suit if they did n't accept their specific terms ( trying to force an agreement more favorable to Nokia on the idea that Apple was already infringing ) .I do n't think Nokia is patent trolling , but I 'm not sure everyone who wonders WTF is up with Nokia thinks they are either .
I find this a big WTF because I thought these technologies would be open standards with fairly standardized licensing procedures .
What caused the break down here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on the patents really, and how they are supposed to be licensed.
It isn't cut and dry that Nokia's claim against Apple is 100\% valid, or even that it is invalid.
Us spectators just don't know, and make leaps of logic to say one thing or another.If Apple is buying these parts off the shelf, and the manufacturer of these parts is paying the license fee, why is Apple required to pay up as well?
If Nokia isn't making the parts manufacturer pay for the per-unit license, it seems like a bit of oversight on their part and adds complexity to licensing.And what about the IEEE in this?
They ratify the 802.11 standards, so why is there a second licensing channel for the WiFi bits that someone has to go through?
(I've not delved into who maintains control over GSM and UMTS, so I can't speak to that)Obviously there was some negotiation going on for licensing prior to the lawsuit.
What happened to make them break down?
Was Apple just refusing to pay, or did Nokia think they could maybe get higher fees from Apple by threatening the suit if they didn't accept their specific terms (trying to force an agreement more favorable to Nokia on the idea that Apple was already infringing).I don't think Nokia is patent trolling, but I'm not sure everyone who wonders WTF is up with Nokia thinks they are either.
I find this a big WTF because I thought these technologies would be open standards with fairly standardized licensing procedures.
What caused the break down here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837631</id>
	<title>Sounds like ...</title>
	<author>Pool\_Noodle</author>
	<datestamp>1256236920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like Nokia is trying to break into the sauce market<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 'cause I'm getting the impression they want to crush apple in court.
<br>
"Coming to a store near you Nokia brand Apple Sauce"
<br>
(Ok... bad joke)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like Nokia is trying to break into the sauce market ... 'cause I 'm getting the impression they want to crush apple in court .
" Coming to a store near you Nokia brand Apple Sauce " ( Ok... bad joke )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like Nokia is trying to break into the sauce market ... 'cause I'm getting the impression they want to crush apple in court.
"Coming to a store near you Nokia brand Apple Sauce"

(Ok... bad joke)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841333</id>
	<title>Translation: Apple is Killing Nokia.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1256213400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This simply means that Apple is killing Nokia in the cell phone market. NO ONE wants a Nokia phone, and the iPhone is incredibly popular due to its software, design, and intergration with itunes.</p><p>Nokia just cant provide a service/device anywhere near as complete or seamless as itunes/iphone. SO what is Nokia to do? They pull this shit.</p><p>This is the "Too Big to Fail" mentality. Nokia, cant make a product good enough to earn their companies existance, so they are going to go after Apple in court.</p><p>Nokia clearly has shit management, shit designs, and shit ideas.... Activate the lawyers as a last resort!</p><p>Pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This simply means that Apple is killing Nokia in the cell phone market .
NO ONE wants a Nokia phone , and the iPhone is incredibly popular due to its software , design , and intergration with itunes.Nokia just cant provide a service/device anywhere near as complete or seamless as itunes/iphone .
SO what is Nokia to do ?
They pull this shit.This is the " Too Big to Fail " mentality .
Nokia , cant make a product good enough to earn their companies existance , so they are going to go after Apple in court.Nokia clearly has shit management , shit designs , and shit ideas.... Activate the lawyers as a last resort ! Pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This simply means that Apple is killing Nokia in the cell phone market.
NO ONE wants a Nokia phone, and the iPhone is incredibly popular due to its software, design, and intergration with itunes.Nokia just cant provide a service/device anywhere near as complete or seamless as itunes/iphone.
SO what is Nokia to do?
They pull this shit.This is the "Too Big to Fail" mentality.
Nokia, cant make a product good enough to earn their companies existance, so they are going to go after Apple in court.Nokia clearly has shit management, shit designs, and shit ideas.... Activate the lawyers as a last resort!Pathetic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840857</id>
	<title>Re:not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256210160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lame shot across the bow...</p><p>Columbia U. computer labs were chock full'O Next's courtesy of Steve J.  They used them as X boxen running pica email for students.  The support bought NeXT absolutely nothing for the platform, language or machines.</p><p>Ooops, the NeXTstation boxes were fabulous satellite up links for whatever grad students do with those...</p><p>Apple learned there are no first to market winners... that why 3rd generation technology is optimized in mature markets to solve real problems the pioneers didn't see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lame shot across the bow...Columbia U. computer labs were chock full'O Next 's courtesy of Steve J. They used them as X boxen running pica email for students .
The support bought NeXT absolutely nothing for the platform , language or machines.Ooops , the NeXTstation boxes were fabulous satellite up links for whatever grad students do with those...Apple learned there are no first to market winners... that why 3rd generation technology is optimized in mature markets to solve real problems the pioneers did n't see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lame shot across the bow...Columbia U. computer labs were chock full'O Next's courtesy of Steve J.  They used them as X boxen running pica email for students.
The support bought NeXT absolutely nothing for the platform, language or machines.Ooops, the NeXTstation boxes were fabulous satellite up links for whatever grad students do with those...Apple learned there are no first to market winners... that why 3rd generation technology is optimized in mature markets to solve real problems the pioneers didn't see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256236140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the press release.  Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades.  Wireless communication is probably not quite as simple as one click shopping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the press release .
Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades .
Wireless communication is probably not quite as simple as one click shopping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the press release.
Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades.
Wireless communication is probably not quite as simple as one click shopping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842627</id>
	<title>Acronym fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256229180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's UMTS, not "UTMS".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's UMTS , not " UTMS " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's UMTS, not "UTMS".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839841</id>
	<title>Re:not surprising</title>
	<author>pHus10n</author>
	<datestamp>1256204340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suppose publishing the tech for Grand Central doesn't count?  <br>
<br>
If you're going to bash, at least be correct.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose publishing the tech for Grand Central does n't count ?
If you 're going to bash , at least be correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose publishing the tech for Grand Central doesn't count?
If you're going to bash, at least be correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838727</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256241780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nokia spend so much on research, but what about the result of those research? Compare it with Microsoft Research. Beeng evil and all that Microsoft Reseach produce a lot of high-qaulity scientific papers every year, which cited and used all around the field. I remember quite a bunch of them. I can not remember even one paper form Nokia research. Computer Vision? Parallelism ? Machine learning ? What a they doing with all those money beside paying salaries to executives?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades.Nokia spend so much on research , but what about the result of those research ?
Compare it with Microsoft Research .
Beeng evil and all that Microsoft Reseach produce a lot of high-qaulity scientific papers every year , which cited and used all around the field .
I remember quite a bunch of them .
I can not remember even one paper form Nokia research .
Computer Vision ?
Parallelism ?
Machine learning ?
What a they doing with all those money beside paying salaries to executives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades.Nokia spend so much on research, but what about the result of those research?
Compare it with Microsoft Research.
Beeng evil and all that Microsoft Reseach produce a lot of high-qaulity scientific papers every year, which cited and used all around the field.
I remember quite a bunch of them.
I can not remember even one paper form Nokia research.
Computer Vision?
Parallelism ?
Machine learning ?
What a they doing with all those money beside paying salaries to executives?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844059</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>BESTouff</author>
	<datestamp>1256297340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nokia is just angry that they are profits are down and Apple's profits are up.<br>
Source: CNN Money [cnn.com]</p></div><p>An US info channel says an Euro company behaves badly against an Us company.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia is just angry that they are profits are down and Apple 's profits are up .
Source : CNN Money [ cnn.com ] An US info channel says an Euro company behaves badly against an Us company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia is just angry that they are profits are down and Apple's profits are up.
Source: CNN Money [cnn.com]An US info channel says an Euro company behaves badly against an Us company.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839977</id>
	<title>Once it popped into my head, I couldn't resist...</title>
	<author>joeyblades</author>
	<datestamp>1256205060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting sued for patent infringement?... There's an app for that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting sued for patent infringement ? .. .
There 's an app for that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting sued for patent infringement?...
There's an app for that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840769</id>
	<title>Re:Two way street</title>
	<author>AVee</author>
	<datestamp>1256209440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interestingly, the <i>scroll and bounce back</i> behaviour described in that article is in the N900 interface as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , the scroll and bounce back behaviour described in that article is in the N900 interface as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, the scroll and bounce back behaviour described in that article is in the N900 interface as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844483</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1256302740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Nokia is just angry that they are profits are down and Apple's profits are up.<br></i></p><p>No, it says their share fell - but they still have a whopping 35\%, even in just the smartphones market, whatever that is. Given that Nokia have a presence in all markets, where as Apple only occupy the high end, it suggests their lead overall will be even greater, something Apple can only dream of. The 7.4 million Iphone sales is a footnote in the mobile phone market - I imagine most of their revenue these days come from the Ipod.</p><p>It's debateable whether the Iphone even counts as a smartphone (go on, give me a definition that includes the Iphone, but doesn't include so-called "feature phones"?), in which case, Apple's share is rather small.</p><p>Let's not forget that Apple have sued other companies over patents too, so your claim that it's about being "angry" applies to them also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia is just angry that they are profits are down and Apple 's profits are up.No , it says their share fell - but they still have a whopping 35 \ % , even in just the smartphones market , whatever that is .
Given that Nokia have a presence in all markets , where as Apple only occupy the high end , it suggests their lead overall will be even greater , something Apple can only dream of .
The 7.4 million Iphone sales is a footnote in the mobile phone market - I imagine most of their revenue these days come from the Ipod.It 's debateable whether the Iphone even counts as a smartphone ( go on , give me a definition that includes the Iphone , but does n't include so-called " feature phones " ?
) , in which case , Apple 's share is rather small.Let 's not forget that Apple have sued other companies over patents too , so your claim that it 's about being " angry " applies to them also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia is just angry that they are profits are down and Apple's profits are up.No, it says their share fell - but they still have a whopping 35\%, even in just the smartphones market, whatever that is.
Given that Nokia have a presence in all markets, where as Apple only occupy the high end, it suggests their lead overall will be even greater, something Apple can only dream of.
The 7.4 million Iphone sales is a footnote in the mobile phone market - I imagine most of their revenue these days come from the Ipod.It's debateable whether the Iphone even counts as a smartphone (go on, give me a definition that includes the Iphone, but doesn't include so-called "feature phones"?
), in which case, Apple's share is rather small.Let's not forget that Apple have sued other companies over patents too, so your claim that it's about being "angry" applies to them also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837523</id>
	<title>Just like Cisco...</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1256236440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will be another Cisco event where the case eventually gets settled out of court for some undisclosed amount of money...  nothing to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be another Cisco event where the case eventually gets settled out of court for some undisclosed amount of money... nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be another Cisco event where the case eventually gets settled out of court for some undisclosed amount of money...  nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840003</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256205180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the whole idea of patent trolling is up side down. It's not fault of these companies that sue other for stupid software patents, it's a system's fault. "Everyone wants to live", like they used to say in Soviet Russia.</p><p>In this particular case, I think they are suing over patents that are not "software patents" in general. I might be wrong, I don't know the details, but I guess it's about GSM and networking in general, which they really pushed forward.</p><p>In order of patent system to work, it is essential that patenting something brings money from licensing this technology. In many industries this works like expected. And it appears it works in cell phones industry.</p><p>I tell you what changed. Apple is big hardware company. But they also do software. While patent system works more or less OK in hardware industry, it is absolutely easily exploitable in software world.</p><p>Apple is bringing "we have large software patents portfolio, don't sue us or we will do the same" to another industry. I hope it won't spread. Software patents and this "defend ourselves by patenting" policy won't be transferred to hardware industry - because it's true cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the whole idea of patent trolling is up side down .
It 's not fault of these companies that sue other for stupid software patents , it 's a system 's fault .
" Everyone wants to live " , like they used to say in Soviet Russia.In this particular case , I think they are suing over patents that are not " software patents " in general .
I might be wrong , I do n't know the details , but I guess it 's about GSM and networking in general , which they really pushed forward.In order of patent system to work , it is essential that patenting something brings money from licensing this technology .
In many industries this works like expected .
And it appears it works in cell phones industry.I tell you what changed .
Apple is big hardware company .
But they also do software .
While patent system works more or less OK in hardware industry , it is absolutely easily exploitable in software world.Apple is bringing " we have large software patents portfolio , do n't sue us or we will do the same " to another industry .
I hope it wo n't spread .
Software patents and this " defend ourselves by patenting " policy wo n't be transferred to hardware industry - because it 's true cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the whole idea of patent trolling is up side down.
It's not fault of these companies that sue other for stupid software patents, it's a system's fault.
"Everyone wants to live", like they used to say in Soviet Russia.In this particular case, I think they are suing over patents that are not "software patents" in general.
I might be wrong, I don't know the details, but I guess it's about GSM and networking in general, which they really pushed forward.In order of patent system to work, it is essential that patenting something brings money from licensing this technology.
In many industries this works like expected.
And it appears it works in cell phones industry.I tell you what changed.
Apple is big hardware company.
But they also do software.
While patent system works more or less OK in hardware industry, it is absolutely easily exploitable in software world.Apple is bringing "we have large software patents portfolio, don't sue us or we will do the same" to another industry.
I hope it won't spread.
Software patents and this "defend ourselves by patenting" policy won't be transferred to hardware industry - because it's true cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843899</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to do with software !!</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1256294820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How can people call Nolia a patent troll because some company comes in years after Nokia did all the work and steals the tech??</p> </div><p>Because Nolia deliberately named their business with a similar-sounding name, and then tried to make claims on the patents held by Nokia?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can people call Nolia a patent troll because some company comes in years after Nokia did all the work and steals the tech ? ?
Because Nolia deliberately named their business with a similar-sounding name , and then tried to make claims on the patents held by Nokia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can people call Nolia a patent troll because some company comes in years after Nokia did all the work and steals the tech??
Because Nolia deliberately named their business with a similar-sounding name, and then tried to make claims on the patents held by Nokia?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839621</id>
	<title>Humorous</title>
	<author>TheJodster</author>
	<datestamp>1256203140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it both entertaining and comical when the alligators start eating each other.  This reminds me of when RIM got sued over push email technology and lost.  Now somebody get the popcorn going and I'll fetch the lawn chairs.  This will be good!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it both entertaining and comical when the alligators start eating each other .
This reminds me of when RIM got sued over push email technology and lost .
Now somebody get the popcorn going and I 'll fetch the lawn chairs .
This will be good !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it both entertaining and comical when the alligators start eating each other.
This reminds me of when RIM got sued over push email technology and lost.
Now somebody get the popcorn going and I'll fetch the lawn chairs.
This will be good!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842917</id>
	<title>Nokia actually stole IPR from a little company</title>
	<author>singlevalley</author>
	<datestamp>1256233980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>named IDCC, and is fighting the cases in court.

This is hilarious..nokia just needs to be banned from selling their handsets in USA...</htmltext>
<tokenext>named IDCC , and is fighting the cases in court .
This is hilarious..nokia just needs to be banned from selling their handsets in USA.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>named IDCC, and is fighting the cases in court.
This is hilarious..nokia just needs to be banned from selling their handsets in USA...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838085</id>
	<title>Re:Those 40 other... losers?</title>
	<author>INeededALogin</author>
	<datestamp>1256238600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Apple could buy Nokia in cash and a bit of stock.</i> <br> <br>
These broad statements...  No... Apple could not buy Nokia.  They may offer their 30 billion in cash, but Nokia would simply turn it down.  You don't simply buy a 100 year old company with so much history behind it.  Not only that, but Nokia's losses are not in the device sector.<br> <br>
<i>why would they want to</i> <br> <br>
Oh, I don't know... tons of patents, Navteq, QT, loads of talented engineers, manufacturing facilities... value is not just last quarter.  As it stands, Apple did have a quite a few bad quarters in their past as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple could buy Nokia in cash and a bit of stock .
These broad statements... No... Apple could not buy Nokia .
They may offer their 30 billion in cash , but Nokia would simply turn it down .
You do n't simply buy a 100 year old company with so much history behind it .
Not only that , but Nokia 's losses are not in the device sector .
why would they want to Oh , I do n't know... tons of patents , Navteq , QT , loads of talented engineers , manufacturing facilities... value is not just last quarter .
As it stands , Apple did have a quite a few bad quarters in their past as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple could buy Nokia in cash and a bit of stock.
These broad statements...  No... Apple could not buy Nokia.
They may offer their 30 billion in cash, but Nokia would simply turn it down.
You don't simply buy a 100 year old company with so much history behind it.
Not only that, but Nokia's losses are not in the device sector.
why would they want to  
Oh, I don't know... tons of patents, Navteq, QT, loads of talented engineers, manufacturing facilities... value is not just last quarter.
As it stands, Apple did have a quite a few bad quarters in their past as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837941</id>
	<title>Re:Those 40 other... losers?</title>
	<author>INeededALogin</author>
	<datestamp>1256238000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Are those other companies as big and brash as Apple? Apple has an estimated market cap of ~$180 billion, while Nokia has ~$50 billion.</i> <br> <br>
What does Market Cap have to do with anything?  Market cap is nothing more than the perceived value of the company by the public based on the value of its stock.  Apple is on a hot streak right now.  Also, those other companies are going to be Sony Ericcson, Motorola, HTC, Palm, Qualcomm, etc...<br> <br>
Nokia takes patents seriously.  It resolved the Qualcomm problems with a $2.29 billion dollar payment that they paid to Qualcomm for use of their patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are those other companies as big and brash as Apple ?
Apple has an estimated market cap of ~ $ 180 billion , while Nokia has ~ $ 50 billion .
What does Market Cap have to do with anything ?
Market cap is nothing more than the perceived value of the company by the public based on the value of its stock .
Apple is on a hot streak right now .
Also , those other companies are going to be Sony Ericcson , Motorola , HTC , Palm , Qualcomm , etc.. . Nokia takes patents seriously .
It resolved the Qualcomm problems with a $ 2.29 billion dollar payment that they paid to Qualcomm for use of their patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are those other companies as big and brash as Apple?
Apple has an estimated market cap of ~$180 billion, while Nokia has ~$50 billion.
What does Market Cap have to do with anything?
Market cap is nothing more than the perceived value of the company by the public based on the value of its stock.
Apple is on a hot streak right now.
Also, those other companies are going to be Sony Ericcson, Motorola, HTC, Palm, Qualcomm, etc... 
Nokia takes patents seriously.
It resolved the Qualcomm problems with a $2.29 billion dollar payment that they paid to Qualcomm for use of their patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839391</id>
	<title>Re:Presumed guilty</title>
	<author>wfolta</author>
	<datestamp>1256245080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or perhaps Nokia, which has totally dropped the ball in the North American market, and which is also now facing an unusually tough challenge in the smartphone market, is refusing to license to Apple under reasonable terms in order to try to slow down the iTrain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps Nokia , which has totally dropped the ball in the North American market , and which is also now facing an unusually tough challenge in the smartphone market , is refusing to license to Apple under reasonable terms in order to try to slow down the iTrain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps Nokia, which has totally dropped the ball in the North American market, and which is also now facing an unusually tough challenge in the smartphone market, is refusing to license to Apple under reasonable terms in order to try to slow down the iTrain?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843927</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to do with software !!</title>
	<author>bonefry</author>
	<datestamp>1256295300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the manufacturer of the related hardware isn't the one that's a threat to Nokia. Apple is.<br>They are designing the iPhone, they are the ones getting most of the profit.</p><p>People are calling Nokia a patent-troll, but Apple deserves this. They have patents on multi-touch gestures and because of that competitors (like Android) can't implement features requiring multi-touch.</p><p>Want a free pass? Learn to play nice then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the manufacturer of the related hardware is n't the one that 's a threat to Nokia .
Apple is.They are designing the iPhone , they are the ones getting most of the profit.People are calling Nokia a patent-troll , but Apple deserves this .
They have patents on multi-touch gestures and because of that competitors ( like Android ) ca n't implement features requiring multi-touch.Want a free pass ?
Learn to play nice then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the manufacturer of the related hardware isn't the one that's a threat to Nokia.
Apple is.They are designing the iPhone, they are the ones getting most of the profit.People are calling Nokia a patent-troll, but Apple deserves this.
They have patents on multi-touch gestures and because of that competitors (like Android) can't implement features requiring multi-touch.Want a free pass?
Learn to play nice then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838515</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1256240700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be angry too if Apple's profits were up and mine were down<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh, wait</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be angry too if Apple 's profits were up and mine were down ... oh , wait</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be angry too if Apple's profits were up and mine were down ... oh, wait</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843669</id>
	<title>Re:Those 40 other... losers?</title>
	<author>Too Much Noise</author>
	<datestamp>1256291220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you that simple?</p><p>ok, let's look at the naive picture. AAPL has about 24.5B in cash and short-term investments as of end of last quarter. That's telling you nothing yet, since the company also has other current and non-current assets, and you have to subtract liabilities. Let's say current assets minus current liabilities (net tangible assets include non-liquid ones and various accounting issues in this market), that's about  18.5B. No sane company would use that completely for acquisitions, today's lending markets being what they are. But still. Now, Nokia has a market cap of some 49B and you bet any hostile takeover[*] would require quite a premium to convince shareholders, plus investment banking fees. Putting that at a 40\% extra is <i>very</i> conservative, but let's assume that. You end up with some 70B acquisition costs. So AAPL would have to raise roughly Nokia's market cap beyond their net current assets, which is slightly less than a third of their market cap. Apple's stock would tank if they tried to raise that kind of money, either in the stock market or via bonds, making it even harder to do.</p><p>So no, Apple <b>can't</b> buy Nokia.</p><p>[1] management is free to refuse a takeover offer. Then, if enough shareholders disagree, they can hold a shareholder meeting, boot management and go ahead with the sale. Then, you have regulators to convince to approve the sale, particularly for such large companies. So it's not that simple even with a public company. Just ask Larry, Oracle has been playing this game a lot lately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you that simple ? ok , let 's look at the naive picture .
AAPL has about 24.5B in cash and short-term investments as of end of last quarter .
That 's telling you nothing yet , since the company also has other current and non-current assets , and you have to subtract liabilities .
Let 's say current assets minus current liabilities ( net tangible assets include non-liquid ones and various accounting issues in this market ) , that 's about 18.5B .
No sane company would use that completely for acquisitions , today 's lending markets being what they are .
But still .
Now , Nokia has a market cap of some 49B and you bet any hostile takeover [ * ] would require quite a premium to convince shareholders , plus investment banking fees .
Putting that at a 40 \ % extra is very conservative , but let 's assume that .
You end up with some 70B acquisition costs .
So AAPL would have to raise roughly Nokia 's market cap beyond their net current assets , which is slightly less than a third of their market cap .
Apple 's stock would tank if they tried to raise that kind of money , either in the stock market or via bonds , making it even harder to do.So no , Apple ca n't buy Nokia .
[ 1 ] management is free to refuse a takeover offer .
Then , if enough shareholders disagree , they can hold a shareholder meeting , boot management and go ahead with the sale .
Then , you have regulators to convince to approve the sale , particularly for such large companies .
So it 's not that simple even with a public company .
Just ask Larry , Oracle has been playing this game a lot lately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you that simple?ok, let's look at the naive picture.
AAPL has about 24.5B in cash and short-term investments as of end of last quarter.
That's telling you nothing yet, since the company also has other current and non-current assets, and you have to subtract liabilities.
Let's say current assets minus current liabilities (net tangible assets include non-liquid ones and various accounting issues in this market), that's about  18.5B.
No sane company would use that completely for acquisitions, today's lending markets being what they are.
But still.
Now, Nokia has a market cap of some 49B and you bet any hostile takeover[*] would require quite a premium to convince shareholders, plus investment banking fees.
Putting that at a 40\% extra is very conservative, but let's assume that.
You end up with some 70B acquisition costs.
So AAPL would have to raise roughly Nokia's market cap beyond their net current assets, which is slightly less than a third of their market cap.
Apple's stock would tank if they tried to raise that kind of money, either in the stock market or via bonds, making it even harder to do.So no, Apple can't buy Nokia.
[1] management is free to refuse a takeover offer.
Then, if enough shareholders disagree, they can hold a shareholder meeting, boot management and go ahead with the sale.
Then, you have regulators to convince to approve the sale, particularly for such large companies.
So it's not that simple even with a public company.
Just ask Larry, Oracle has been playing this game a lot lately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837751</id>
	<title>Re:Presumed guilty</title>
	<author>That's Unpossible!</author>
	<datestamp>1256237280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's ok to state the reason Nokia is giving for suing. They aren't saying they're right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's ok to state the reason Nokia is giving for suing .
They are n't saying they 're right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's ok to state the reason Nokia is giving for suing.
They aren't saying they're right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842859</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>slashdotjunker</author>
	<datestamp>1256233080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Read the press release. Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades. Wireless communication is probably not quite as simple as one click shopping.</p></div><p>Mods, this post is intellectually void. Just because someone spent 40 billion euros on something does not mean it's worth 40 billion. That's circular logic and you can use it to justify anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the press release .
Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades .
Wireless communication is probably not quite as simple as one click shopping.Mods , this post is intellectually void .
Just because someone spent 40 billion euros on something does not mean it 's worth 40 billion .
That 's circular logic and you can use it to justify anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the press release.
Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&amp;D over the last two decades.
Wireless communication is probably not quite as simple as one click shopping.Mods, this post is intellectually void.
Just because someone spent 40 billion euros on something does not mean it's worth 40 billion.
That's circular logic and you can use it to justify anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837989</id>
	<title>Nothing to do with software !!</title>
	<author>pablo\_max</author>
	<datestamp>1256238180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking over these posts..it's amazing that how little people understand of the technology they use.<br>Nokia's patents pertaining to GSM technology and UMTS have absolutely nothing to do with a phones OS but rather the 7 layers under it.</p><p>Nokia has spent many millions over the years on GSM and UMTS. They are major contributors to the 3GPP standards body and have help in a measurable way to shape the technology.<br>How can people call Nolia a patent troll because some company comes in years after Nokia did all the work and steals the tech?? Are you kidding me?</p><p>I know it's Apple and the normal rules of the world should not apply, but for F's sake people. This is the reason we have patents! It's not some nonsense software patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking over these posts..it 's amazing that how little people understand of the technology they use.Nokia 's patents pertaining to GSM technology and UMTS have absolutely nothing to do with a phones OS but rather the 7 layers under it.Nokia has spent many millions over the years on GSM and UMTS .
They are major contributors to the 3GPP standards body and have help in a measurable way to shape the technology.How can people call Nolia a patent troll because some company comes in years after Nokia did all the work and steals the tech ? ?
Are you kidding me ? I know it 's Apple and the normal rules of the world should not apply , but for F 's sake people .
This is the reason we have patents !
It 's not some nonsense software patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking over these posts..it's amazing that how little people understand of the technology they use.Nokia's patents pertaining to GSM technology and UMTS have absolutely nothing to do with a phones OS but rather the 7 layers under it.Nokia has spent many millions over the years on GSM and UMTS.
They are major contributors to the 3GPP standards body and have help in a measurable way to shape the technology.How can people call Nolia a patent troll because some company comes in years after Nokia did all the work and steals the tech??
Are you kidding me?I know it's Apple and the normal rules of the world should not apply, but for F's sake people.
This is the reason we have patents!
It's not some nonsense software patent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841209</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people this much against patents?</title>
	<author>rtfa-troll</author>
	<datestamp>1256212440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seeing all the replies here, I am left wondering why people hate patents so much.</p></div><p>I think that it's because your description is quite idealistic and doesn't work in real life.  Patent lawsuits require huge amounts of capital and so are simply not available to the average small doctor inventor.   This means that only big companies can use patents and the small inventor is left at the bottom of a delivery chain which gives him nothing.  Secondly patents are mostly nullified in cross licensing agreements.  Each of the main players in an industry will agree with the others to royalty free or fixed royalty use of each other's patents.  Any new player has to come in and negotiate from a much weaker stance, ending up paying much more.  Patents end up re-inforcing the power of big compaies.

</p><p>there are other issues also: patent lawyers are continually trying to push patents where they don't belong (e.g. software or living organisms) and end up coming across as seriously evil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing all the replies here , I am left wondering why people hate patents so much.I think that it 's because your description is quite idealistic and does n't work in real life .
Patent lawsuits require huge amounts of capital and so are simply not available to the average small doctor inventor .
This means that only big companies can use patents and the small inventor is left at the bottom of a delivery chain which gives him nothing .
Secondly patents are mostly nullified in cross licensing agreements .
Each of the main players in an industry will agree with the others to royalty free or fixed royalty use of each other 's patents .
Any new player has to come in and negotiate from a much weaker stance , ending up paying much more .
Patents end up re-inforcing the power of big compaies .
there are other issues also : patent lawyers are continually trying to push patents where they do n't belong ( e.g .
software or living organisms ) and end up coming across as seriously evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing all the replies here, I am left wondering why people hate patents so much.I think that it's because your description is quite idealistic and doesn't work in real life.
Patent lawsuits require huge amounts of capital and so are simply not available to the average small doctor inventor.
This means that only big companies can use patents and the small inventor is left at the bottom of a delivery chain which gives him nothing.
Secondly patents are mostly nullified in cross licensing agreements.
Each of the main players in an industry will agree with the others to royalty free or fixed royalty use of each other's patents.
Any new player has to come in and negotiate from a much weaker stance, ending up paying much more.
Patents end up re-inforcing the power of big compaies.
there are other issues also: patent lawyers are continually trying to push patents where they don't belong (e.g.
software or living organisms) and end up coming across as seriously evil.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209</id>
	<title>Two way street</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256235240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who should be the first to tell Nokia they are in violation of a few hundred Apple patents as well?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who should be the first to tell Nokia they are in violation of a few hundred Apple patents as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who should be the first to tell Nokia they are in violation of a few hundred Apple patents as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842689</id>
	<title>Just one more example that Nokia has lost its edge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256230200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't like Apple either, their "we control everything" -approach is so antithesis to all we geeks like.<br>But, it is clear that Nokia has lost its edge in the smart phone segment, therefore in the<br>whole phone business altogether. It is hard to say, if they can grab the market back with<br>Maemo platform, but Apple and Google have a huge head start. I have to say that given the probability that<br>Maemo will tank also, I am rooting for Android. At least it does not have those STUPID mandatory sign your<br>binaries thing like S60v3. Shit! Just learned that selfsigned S60 binaries do NOT have multimedia<br>capability (no access to camera API etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like Apple either , their " we control everything " -approach is so antithesis to all we geeks like.But , it is clear that Nokia has lost its edge in the smart phone segment , therefore in thewhole phone business altogether .
It is hard to say , if they can grab the market back withMaemo platform , but Apple and Google have a huge head start .
I have to say that given the probability thatMaemo will tank also , I am rooting for Android .
At least it does not have those STUPID mandatory sign yourbinaries thing like S60v3 .
Shit ! Just learned that selfsigned S60 binaries do NOT have multimediacapability ( no access to camera API etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like Apple either, their "we control everything" -approach is so antithesis to all we geeks like.But, it is clear that Nokia has lost its edge in the smart phone segment, therefore in thewhole phone business altogether.
It is hard to say, if they can grab the market back withMaemo platform, but Apple and Google have a huge head start.
I have to say that given the probability thatMaemo will tank also, I am rooting for Android.
At least it does not have those STUPID mandatory sign yourbinaries thing like S60v3.
Shit! Just learned that selfsigned S60 binaries do NOT have multimediacapability (no access to camera API etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545</id>
	<title>Presumed guilty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256236560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...because the iPhone infringes on 10 Nokia patents related to GSM, UTMS and WiFi</p></div></blockquote><p>

Nice presumption that Nokia's claim is valid.  If this were any company other than nefarious, evil, proprietary-everything Apple, would the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. summary be so favorable to Nokia?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because the iPhone infringes on 10 Nokia patents related to GSM , UTMS and WiFi Nice presumption that Nokia 's claim is valid .
If this were any company other than nefarious , evil , proprietary-everything Apple , would the / .
summary be so favorable to Nokia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because the iPhone infringes on 10 Nokia patents related to GSM, UTMS and WiFi

Nice presumption that Nokia's claim is valid.
If this were any company other than nefarious, evil, proprietary-everything Apple, would the /.
summary be so favorable to Nokia?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844339</id>
	<title>Oh well...</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1256301180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since Nokia has been making mobile phones way before Apple even thought about it, I think having a gut feeling favoring Nokia is just fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Nokia has been making mobile phones way before Apple even thought about it , I think having a gut feeling favoring Nokia is just fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Nokia has been making mobile phones way before Apple even thought about it, I think having a gut feeling favoring Nokia is just fair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844537</id>
	<title>Re:Two way street</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1256303280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting - I wish we heard more about stuff like this on Slashdot. To think this was once a place where alternative and open systems were publicised, instead of now just being press releases about a closed locked down platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting - I wish we heard more about stuff like this on Slashdot .
To think this was once a place where alternative and open systems were publicised , instead of now just being press releases about a closed locked down platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting - I wish we heard more about stuff like this on Slashdot.
To think this was once a place where alternative and open systems were publicised, instead of now just being press releases about a closed locked down platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840647</id>
	<title>Funny image....</title>
	<author>ekool</author>
	<datestamp>1256208720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny image here: http://www.talkiphone.com/nokia-suing-apple-for-patent-infringement-1664/</p><p>http://www.talkiphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nokia-suing-apple1.gif</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny image here : http : //www.talkiphone.com/nokia-suing-apple-for-patent-infringement-1664/http : //www.talkiphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nokia-suing-apple1.gif</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny image here: http://www.talkiphone.com/nokia-suing-apple-for-patent-infringement-1664/http://www.talkiphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nokia-suing-apple1.gif</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29846085</id>
	<title>Re:not surprising</title>
	<author>macs4all</author>
	<datestamp>1256312940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple's R&amp;D investment is far below industry average, and most of that is "D", not "R".</p></div><p>ORLY?<br> <br>
Then why, pray tell, do they far out-innovate most other tech companies? Please cite the source for your otherwise baseless bashing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If all companies were as stingy as Apple when it comes to R&amp;D, computer science research would be in deep trouble.</p> </div><p>So, I guess all the R&amp;D that Apple has released as Open Source is being "stingy" with R&amp;D (launchd, iCal, Calendar Server, bonjour, Darwin, webkit, Grand Central Dispatch, etc.) and all the R&amp;D that Apple has contributed to ongoing F/OSS projects (zfs fixes, Khtml fixes, CUPS (yes, I know they bought CUPS, but they still leave it Open Source), Apache fixes, etc.) is also being stingy with R&amp;D.<br> <br>
Oh, and that doesn't even count the echnology that Apple released into the Public Domain, long before their was a term for "Open Source" (AppleTalk and OpenDoc come to mind, and I know there are others I can't recall off hand).
Yes, the world would be in a sorry state if all companies were as "stingy" with their R&amp;D as Apple...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple can only make nice products because other companies and universities have invested a hell of a lot of money and time inventing the things that Apple then assembles into products.</p></div><p>So, I guess Nokia invented the transistor, the integrated circuit, Li-ion batteries, epoxy, polycarbonate plastics, LCDs, the capacitor, surface mount technology, the resistor, the microprocessor, flash memory, SRAM memory, to name but a few of the "nice products" that Nokia "then assembles into products.", right?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That model is not sustainable</p></div><p>Hmmm. Seems to be working well for not only Apple (since their stock <a href="http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/aapl\_closes\_at\_all-time\_high\_of\_204.92/?utm\_campaign=feature" title="macobserver.com" rel="nofollow">just closed at an <em>all-time high</em> </a> [macobserver.com] (and in this economy!)), but for all of the tech sector as well. Again, cite a source that says that Apple's business model is "unsustainable".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I can see why companies like Nokia are getting litigious over it.</p></div><p>Really? Because it just looks like going after the deep pockets to me...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's R&amp;D investment is far below industry average , and most of that is " D " , not " R " .ORLY ?
Then why , pray tell , do they far out-innovate most other tech companies ?
Please cite the source for your otherwise baseless bashing.If all companies were as stingy as Apple when it comes to R&amp;D , computer science research would be in deep trouble .
So , I guess all the R&amp;D that Apple has released as Open Source is being " stingy " with R&amp;D ( launchd , iCal , Calendar Server , bonjour , Darwin , webkit , Grand Central Dispatch , etc .
) and all the R&amp;D that Apple has contributed to ongoing F/OSS projects ( zfs fixes , Khtml fixes , CUPS ( yes , I know they bought CUPS , but they still leave it Open Source ) , Apache fixes , etc .
) is also being stingy with R&amp;D .
Oh , and that does n't even count the echnology that Apple released into the Public Domain , long before their was a term for " Open Source " ( AppleTalk and OpenDoc come to mind , and I know there are others I ca n't recall off hand ) .
Yes , the world would be in a sorry state if all companies were as " stingy " with their R&amp;D as Apple...Apple can only make nice products because other companies and universities have invested a hell of a lot of money and time inventing the things that Apple then assembles into products.So , I guess Nokia invented the transistor , the integrated circuit , Li-ion batteries , epoxy , polycarbonate plastics , LCDs , the capacitor , surface mount technology , the resistor , the microprocessor , flash memory , SRAM memory , to name but a few of the " nice products " that Nokia " then assembles into products .
" , right ? That model is not sustainableHmmm .
Seems to be working well for not only Apple ( since their stock just closed at an all-time high [ macobserver.com ] ( and in this economy !
) ) , but for all of the tech sector as well .
Again , cite a source that says that Apple 's business model is " unsustainable " .I can see why companies like Nokia are getting litigious over it.Really ?
Because it just looks like going after the deep pockets to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's R&amp;D investment is far below industry average, and most of that is "D", not "R".ORLY?
Then why, pray tell, do they far out-innovate most other tech companies?
Please cite the source for your otherwise baseless bashing.If all companies were as stingy as Apple when it comes to R&amp;D, computer science research would be in deep trouble.
So, I guess all the R&amp;D that Apple has released as Open Source is being "stingy" with R&amp;D (launchd, iCal, Calendar Server, bonjour, Darwin, webkit, Grand Central Dispatch, etc.
) and all the R&amp;D that Apple has contributed to ongoing F/OSS projects (zfs fixes, Khtml fixes, CUPS (yes, I know they bought CUPS, but they still leave it Open Source), Apache fixes, etc.
) is also being stingy with R&amp;D.
Oh, and that doesn't even count the echnology that Apple released into the Public Domain, long before their was a term for "Open Source" (AppleTalk and OpenDoc come to mind, and I know there are others I can't recall off hand).
Yes, the world would be in a sorry state if all companies were as "stingy" with their R&amp;D as Apple...Apple can only make nice products because other companies and universities have invested a hell of a lot of money and time inventing the things that Apple then assembles into products.So, I guess Nokia invented the transistor, the integrated circuit, Li-ion batteries, epoxy, polycarbonate plastics, LCDs, the capacitor, surface mount technology, the resistor, the microprocessor, flash memory, SRAM memory, to name but a few of the "nice products" that Nokia "then assembles into products.
", right?That model is not sustainableHmmm.
Seems to be working well for not only Apple (since their stock just closed at an all-time high  [macobserver.com] (and in this economy!
)), but for all of the tech sector as well.
Again, cite a source that says that Apple's business model is "unsustainable".I can see why companies like Nokia are getting litigious over it.Really?
Because it just looks like going after the deep pockets to me...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837721</id>
	<title>Re:Those 40 other... losers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256237160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple could buy Nokia in cash and a bit of stock.</p><p>But seriously, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&amp;sid=akQmOsjhnE.Y" title="bloomberg.com">why would they want to</a> [bloomberg.com]?</p><p>And if you read that article, you'll understand the real reason Nokia is suing Apple...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple could buy Nokia in cash and a bit of stock.But seriously , why would they want to [ bloomberg.com ] ? And if you read that article , you 'll understand the real reason Nokia is suing Apple.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple could buy Nokia in cash and a bit of stock.But seriously, why would they want to [bloomberg.com]?And if you read that article, you'll understand the real reason Nokia is suing Apple...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29848393</id>
	<title>ACoward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256323200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's UMTS, not UTMS. Hard to be credible as a would-be journalist when you can't even check your spelling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's UMTS , not UTMS .
Hard to be credible as a would-be journalist when you ca n't even check your spelling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's UMTS, not UTMS.
Hard to be credible as a would-be journalist when you can't even check your spelling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837347</id>
	<title>Re:So confused about who to root for...</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1256235840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hate Apple...

But hate patent trolling...




My brain hurts.</p></div><p>This "hate" you're talking about. Is it like "steam coming out of your ears" hate or is it  "what a bunch jackasses" hate but whatever, I have a life?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate Apple.. . But hate patent trolling.. . My brain hurts.This " hate " you 're talking about .
Is it like " steam coming out of your ears " hate or is it " what a bunch jackasses " hate but whatever , I have a life ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate Apple...

But hate patent trolling...




My brain hurts.This "hate" you're talking about.
Is it like "steam coming out of your ears" hate or is it  "what a bunch jackasses" hate but whatever, I have a life?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840441</id>
	<title>Re:not surprising</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1256207700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a load of bullshit. So Apple's numerous contributions to open source don't count?</p><p>I don't see what what is so warm and fuzzy about Nokia developing and then patenting their own technologies is anyway. That's exactly what Apple is doing. How are they more caring and sharing than Apple?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of bullshit .
So Apple 's numerous contributions to open source do n't count ? I do n't see what what is so warm and fuzzy about Nokia developing and then patenting their own technologies is anyway .
That 's exactly what Apple is doing .
How are they more caring and sharing than Apple ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of bullshit.
So Apple's numerous contributions to open source don't count?I don't see what what is so warm and fuzzy about Nokia developing and then patenting their own technologies is anyway.
That's exactly what Apple is doing.
How are they more caring and sharing than Apple?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838181</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it again</title>
	<author>jsegal205</author>
	<datestamp>1256238960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nokia is just angry that they are profits are down and Apple's profits are up. <br>Source:
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/22/technology/Nokia\_Apple\_lawsuit/?postversion=2009102212" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow"> CNN Money</a> [cnn.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nokia is just angry that they are profits are down and Apple 's profits are up .
Source : CNN Money [ cnn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nokia is just angry that they are profits are down and Apple's profits are up.
Source:
 CNN Money [cnn.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29860517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29848899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29846085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29860579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29853827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29861023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29845379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29845145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29845083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_22_1541220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29845379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838661
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837647
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838195
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838181
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844483
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844059
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29848899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29844557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29860579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29861023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29860517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838855
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29845083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29842889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29846085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839427
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29853827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29840857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29838917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_22_1541220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29837989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29839145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29843927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29845145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_22_1541220.29841801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
