<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_23_1456221</id>
	<title>Apple Seeks Patent On Operating System Advertising</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256317260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>patentpundit writes <i>"On April 18, 2008, Apple Computer applied for a patent relating to an 'invention' that allows for <a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/10/22/jobs-and-apple-seek-patent-on-operating-system-advertising/id=6761/">showing advertisements within an operating system</a>. The first named inventor on the patent application is none other than Steve Jobs. The patent application published and became available for public inspection on October 22, 2009. If implemented, the invention would make it possible for advertisements to be displayed on a variety of devices, including desktop computers, cell phones, PDAs, and more. In one alarming aspect, the device could be disabled while the advertisements run, thereby forcing users to let the advertisement run its course before the system would unlock and allow further use. In an even more invasive scenario, explained in the patent application, the user could be required to do something, such as click to continue, in order to verify that they are actively watching the advertisement and haven't simply walked away while the ad runs. Whether Apple would implement such an invention is unknown, but it is possible that they think there are others out there who might want to implement such invasive advertising. It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty. I sure hope this is not the future of advertising."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>patentpundit writes " On April 18 , 2008 , Apple Computer applied for a patent relating to an 'invention ' that allows for showing advertisements within an operating system .
The first named inventor on the patent application is none other than Steve Jobs .
The patent application published and became available for public inspection on October 22 , 2009 .
If implemented , the invention would make it possible for advertisements to be displayed on a variety of devices , including desktop computers , cell phones , PDAs , and more .
In one alarming aspect , the device could be disabled while the advertisements run , thereby forcing users to let the advertisement run its course before the system would unlock and allow further use .
In an even more invasive scenario , explained in the patent application , the user could be required to do something , such as click to continue , in order to verify that they are actively watching the advertisement and have n't simply walked away while the ad runs .
Whether Apple would implement such an invention is unknown , but it is possible that they think there are others out there who might want to implement such invasive advertising .
It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising , then Apple will get a royalty .
I sure hope this is not the future of advertising .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>patentpundit writes "On April 18, 2008, Apple Computer applied for a patent relating to an 'invention' that allows for showing advertisements within an operating system.
The first named inventor on the patent application is none other than Steve Jobs.
The patent application published and became available for public inspection on October 22, 2009.
If implemented, the invention would make it possible for advertisements to be displayed on a variety of devices, including desktop computers, cell phones, PDAs, and more.
In one alarming aspect, the device could be disabled while the advertisements run, thereby forcing users to let the advertisement run its course before the system would unlock and allow further use.
In an even more invasive scenario, explained in the patent application, the user could be required to do something, such as click to continue, in order to verify that they are actively watching the advertisement and haven't simply walked away while the ad runs.
Whether Apple would implement such an invention is unknown, but it is possible that they think there are others out there who might want to implement such invasive advertising.
It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty.
I sure hope this is not the future of advertising.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29854593</id>
	<title>Reason 4,284,361 to hate Apple from an iPhone user</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256325360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their strangle and choke business model is approaching the limit and they face imminent failure so have decided to follow the path of profit by litigation since the reception of so many of their other control freak ideas are so well received such as the iPhone fiasco. After all, this business model has worked so well for so many that only the Fortune 50 companies do this instead of actually providing worthwhile products and listening to what customers want before they end up doing it themselves anyway. *cough*SCO*cough*Caldera*cough* I mean how many people really go and jailbreak/unlock their phones to get and do what they want? (pay no attention to the overwhelming number of ads on Craigslist and eBay etc toting jailbroken &amp; unlocked phones just like the geniuses at Apple do. Ignore that little dung beetle named Jobs lurking behind the curtain while you are at it. This is no litmus of what the public wants and will accept.)</p><p>On the bright side this will all but ensure everybody jailbreaks and hopefully unlocks their iPhone and places a custom firmware image on it which will free many more from the many burdens of making the mistake of dealing with the rotten Apple.</p><p>Each firmware release on the iPhone is supposed to be untouchable yet it always get added to the list of jailbreak/unlock/hacktivate compliant versions. iDon't care what they think they will accomplish with this latest shift to shit all over their users including the silver spoon fan bois. iDon't mind continually using the tools that inevitably show up to counter these nanny nuisances. iDon't mind watching Apple waste millions of dollars on this only to have a clever developer and lawyer figure out a loophole and keep things the way they are for Microsoft and Google. iDon't mind having more and more people realize just what a runny splatter of diarrhea Apple has always been on the face of computing. iDon't mind getting a superior Android phone either as soon as my bullshit contract is up. iDon't intend to ever make the mistake of dealing with the rotten Apple ever again. Worm filled decaying useless fucktards.</p><p>Fuck you Apple, go eat a dick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their strangle and choke business model is approaching the limit and they face imminent failure so have decided to follow the path of profit by litigation since the reception of so many of their other control freak ideas are so well received such as the iPhone fiasco .
After all , this business model has worked so well for so many that only the Fortune 50 companies do this instead of actually providing worthwhile products and listening to what customers want before they end up doing it themselves anyway .
* cough * SCO * cough * Caldera * cough * I mean how many people really go and jailbreak/unlock their phones to get and do what they want ?
( pay no attention to the overwhelming number of ads on Craigslist and eBay etc toting jailbroken &amp; unlocked phones just like the geniuses at Apple do .
Ignore that little dung beetle named Jobs lurking behind the curtain while you are at it .
This is no litmus of what the public wants and will accept .
) On the bright side this will all but ensure everybody jailbreaks and hopefully unlocks their iPhone and places a custom firmware image on it which will free many more from the many burdens of making the mistake of dealing with the rotten Apple.Each firmware release on the iPhone is supposed to be untouchable yet it always get added to the list of jailbreak/unlock/hacktivate compliant versions .
iDo n't care what they think they will accomplish with this latest shift to shit all over their users including the silver spoon fan bois .
iDo n't mind continually using the tools that inevitably show up to counter these nanny nuisances .
iDo n't mind watching Apple waste millions of dollars on this only to have a clever developer and lawyer figure out a loophole and keep things the way they are for Microsoft and Google .
iDo n't mind having more and more people realize just what a runny splatter of diarrhea Apple has always been on the face of computing .
iDo n't mind getting a superior Android phone either as soon as my bullshit contract is up .
iDo n't intend to ever make the mistake of dealing with the rotten Apple ever again .
Worm filled decaying useless fucktards.Fuck you Apple , go eat a dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their strangle and choke business model is approaching the limit and they face imminent failure so have decided to follow the path of profit by litigation since the reception of so many of their other control freak ideas are so well received such as the iPhone fiasco.
After all, this business model has worked so well for so many that only the Fortune 50 companies do this instead of actually providing worthwhile products and listening to what customers want before they end up doing it themselves anyway.
*cough*SCO*cough*Caldera*cough* I mean how many people really go and jailbreak/unlock their phones to get and do what they want?
(pay no attention to the overwhelming number of ads on Craigslist and eBay etc toting jailbroken &amp; unlocked phones just like the geniuses at Apple do.
Ignore that little dung beetle named Jobs lurking behind the curtain while you are at it.
This is no litmus of what the public wants and will accept.
)On the bright side this will all but ensure everybody jailbreaks and hopefully unlocks their iPhone and places a custom firmware image on it which will free many more from the many burdens of making the mistake of dealing with the rotten Apple.Each firmware release on the iPhone is supposed to be untouchable yet it always get added to the list of jailbreak/unlock/hacktivate compliant versions.
iDon't care what they think they will accomplish with this latest shift to shit all over their users including the silver spoon fan bois.
iDon't mind continually using the tools that inevitably show up to counter these nanny nuisances.
iDon't mind watching Apple waste millions of dollars on this only to have a clever developer and lawyer figure out a loophole and keep things the way they are for Microsoft and Google.
iDon't mind having more and more people realize just what a runny splatter of diarrhea Apple has always been on the face of computing.
iDon't mind getting a superior Android phone either as soon as my bullshit contract is up.
iDon't intend to ever make the mistake of dealing with the rotten Apple ever again.
Worm filled decaying useless fucktards.Fuck you Apple, go eat a dick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848363</id>
	<title>The device will rule.</title>
	<author>bodland</author>
	<datestamp>1256323140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Traditional media advertising and our consumer based economy are joined at the hip. Content creators are looking for other ways to generate content and the way it looks is that the infrastructure that delivers the media will be the new "publishers" of content. Think of it like the display computers inside TV's, digital television services and telesmartphones will drive content creation rather than the networks and publishers. Because...that is who will have the money and that is where the point of contact is. Content creators will battle and be paid directly by apple to provide exclusive content. For advertisers it will be way cheaper to buy ads that display on a TV that displays hundreds of channels. Than buying ad space for hundreds of channels.
<br>
<br>
When the device trumps the content for advertising delivery you can kiss goodbye traditional media like network TV and print. Device makers with proprietary operating systems will own the white space. They will buy the content. They will discount the device in lieu of more advertising.
<br>
<br>
Content will be on-demand and/or subscription based. This I think will be a boon for creativity as the stranglehold mainstream media has on culture and content will finally be relinquished when they no longer have any advertisers to help create quality programming and content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Traditional media advertising and our consumer based economy are joined at the hip .
Content creators are looking for other ways to generate content and the way it looks is that the infrastructure that delivers the media will be the new " publishers " of content .
Think of it like the display computers inside TV 's , digital television services and telesmartphones will drive content creation rather than the networks and publishers .
Because...that is who will have the money and that is where the point of contact is .
Content creators will battle and be paid directly by apple to provide exclusive content .
For advertisers it will be way cheaper to buy ads that display on a TV that displays hundreds of channels .
Than buying ad space for hundreds of channels .
When the device trumps the content for advertising delivery you can kiss goodbye traditional media like network TV and print .
Device makers with proprietary operating systems will own the white space .
They will buy the content .
They will discount the device in lieu of more advertising .
Content will be on-demand and/or subscription based .
This I think will be a boon for creativity as the stranglehold mainstream media has on culture and content will finally be relinquished when they no longer have any advertisers to help create quality programming and content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traditional media advertising and our consumer based economy are joined at the hip.
Content creators are looking for other ways to generate content and the way it looks is that the infrastructure that delivers the media will be the new "publishers" of content.
Think of it like the display computers inside TV's, digital television services and telesmartphones will drive content creation rather than the networks and publishers.
Because...that is who will have the money and that is where the point of contact is.
Content creators will battle and be paid directly by apple to provide exclusive content.
For advertisers it will be way cheaper to buy ads that display on a TV that displays hundreds of channels.
Than buying ad space for hundreds of channels.
When the device trumps the content for advertising delivery you can kiss goodbye traditional media like network TV and print.
Device makers with proprietary operating systems will own the white space.
They will buy the content.
They will discount the device in lieu of more advertising.
Content will be on-demand and/or subscription based.
This I think will be a boon for creativity as the stranglehold mainstream media has on culture and content will finally be relinquished when they no longer have any advertisers to help create quality programming and content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851263</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1256290800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one else will be able to do it the way specified in the patent.  You can't patent the concept of putting advertising in an OS, just a method.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one else will be able to do it the way specified in the patent .
You ca n't patent the concept of putting advertising in an OS , just a method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one else will be able to do it the way specified in the patent.
You can't patent the concept of putting advertising in an OS, just a method.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848043</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1256322060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing that gives me confidence is the fact that even the almighty Apple would be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail if they tried to actually implement this.</p><p>Of course, I don't really see the need for a patent to prevent other people from doing it. None of the major OS vendors would be so foolish as to think they could actually get away with attempting to implement OS support for invasive ads such as described in the patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing that gives me confidence is the fact that even the almighty Apple would be tarred , feathered , and run out of town on a rail if they tried to actually implement this.Of course , I do n't really see the need for a patent to prevent other people from doing it .
None of the major OS vendors would be so foolish as to think they could actually get away with attempting to implement OS support for invasive ads such as described in the patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing that gives me confidence is the fact that even the almighty Apple would be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail if they tried to actually implement this.Of course, I don't really see the need for a patent to prevent other people from doing it.
None of the major OS vendors would be so foolish as to think they could actually get away with attempting to implement OS support for invasive ads such as described in the patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29856917</id>
	<title>At times like this ...</title>
	<author>Rambo Tribble</author>
	<datestamp>1256401920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... it is truly unfortunate that Linux doesn't really have a field sales force.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it is truly unfortunate that Linux does n't really have a field sales force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it is truly unfortunate that Linux doesn't really have a field sales force.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851987</id>
	<title>Re:Oh HELL NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256294040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People already <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/1999/pulpit\_19990211\_000600.html" title="pbs.org" rel="nofollow">proved</a> [pbs.org] they would put up with it. A lot of folks will do a lot of things if you just use the word "free". (as in beer)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People already proved [ pbs.org ] they would put up with it .
A lot of folks will do a lot of things if you just use the word " free " .
( as in beer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People already proved [pbs.org] they would put up with it.
A lot of folks will do a lot of things if you just use the word "free".
(as in beer)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848815</id>
	<title>First embedded OSX ad:</title>
	<author>Snufu</author>
	<datestamp>1256324640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Laptop hunter!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laptop hunter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laptop hunter!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848923</id>
	<title>It's fairly obvious what this patent is for...</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1256324940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.apple.com/appletv/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">Duh.</a> [apple.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh .
[ apple.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh.
[apple.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848739</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1256324400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple.</p></div></blockquote><p>

What does that protect against?  Why would Apple care if somebody wanted to do something Apple truly believed was stupid?

</p><p>
People might not <i>like</i> this idea, sure... but if the only way they can afford an iPhone is to sit through a 10-second ad before making a call, they'll probably still do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent ( advertising in the OS ) will have to pay through the nose to Apple .
What does that protect against ?
Why would Apple care if somebody wanted to do something Apple truly believed was stupid ?
People might not like this idea , sure... but if the only way they can afford an iPhone is to sit through a 10-second ad before making a call , they 'll probably still do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple.
What does that protect against?
Why would Apple care if somebody wanted to do something Apple truly believed was stupid?
People might not like this idea, sure... but if the only way they can afford an iPhone is to sit through a 10-second ad before making a call, they'll probably still do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850081</id>
	<title>WOW the fanboi faith</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256329500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in apple never ceases to amaze me. At what point will people realize apple is a corporation just like any other, greedy, venal and reliable in only one manner, they will do what is MOST profitable for apple, generally in the short term view, sadly.<br>As for advertising intel inside, that would have been an admission of failure, like saying we ARE just like every other peice of hardware out there, only more expensive...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in apple never ceases to amaze me .
At what point will people realize apple is a corporation just like any other , greedy , venal and reliable in only one manner , they will do what is MOST profitable for apple , generally in the short term view , sadly.As for advertising intel inside , that would have been an admission of failure , like saying we ARE just like every other peice of hardware out there , only more expensive.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in apple never ceases to amaze me.
At what point will people realize apple is a corporation just like any other, greedy, venal and reliable in only one manner, they will do what is MOST profitable for apple, generally in the short term view, sadly.As for advertising intel inside, that would have been an admission of failure, like saying we ARE just like every other peice of hardware out there, only more expensive...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848169</id>
	<title>Can't See this Happening on Any Apple Product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given Mr. Jobs' preference for minimalistic case and interface design, I really can't see this being implemented on *any* Apple-branded product.  It's so contrary to his "vision" if you will.

As others have pointed out...  perhaps it was just to ensure Apple had called "shotgun" on any use of this technology by someone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given Mr. Jobs ' preference for minimalistic case and interface design , I really ca n't see this being implemented on * any * Apple-branded product .
It 's so contrary to his " vision " if you will .
As others have pointed out... perhaps it was just to ensure Apple had called " shotgun " on any use of this technology by someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given Mr. Jobs' preference for minimalistic case and interface design, I really can't see this being implemented on *any* Apple-branded product.
It's so contrary to his "vision" if you will.
As others have pointed out...  perhaps it was just to ensure Apple had called "shotgun" on any use of this technology by someone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850855</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256289240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More to the point, they could deny anyone else the use of the patent, refuse to use it themselves, and head this abomination off at the pass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , they could deny anyone else the use of the patent , refuse to use it themselves , and head this abomination off at the pass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, they could deny anyone else the use of the patent, refuse to use it themselves, and head this abomination off at the pass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848555</id>
	<title>Re:Smart move by Apple</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1256323920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how you spell "M$" while defending Apple for patenting a method of advertising.  Well done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how you spell " M $ " while defending Apple for patenting a method of advertising .
Well done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how you spell "M$" while defending Apple for patenting a method of advertising.
Well done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848325</id>
	<title>COOL! I have another idea for a patent, then.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will file for a patent that allows me to record my computer usage before I use it so that I can replay it later and fast forward through the commercials! I will call it....</p><p><b>PiVO</b>!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will file for a patent that allows me to record my computer usage before I use it so that I can replay it later and fast forward through the commercials !
I will call it....PiVO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will file for a patent that allows me to record my computer usage before I use it so that I can replay it later and fast forward through the commercials!
I will call it....PiVO!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849195</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1256326080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In other news, I use linux?"</p><p>What the hell is this question asking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In other news , I use linux ?
" What the hell is this question asking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In other news, I use linux?
"What the hell is this question asking?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848255</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I'm guessing you guys feel that domain name squatting is a good idea, considering that is essentially what Apple is trying to do (except with advertisements instead).</p><p>Personally, I'd rather Apple NOT get a chunk of any money that comes out of this - it will just encourage them to try to pull this kind of bullshit for other mediums.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm guessing you guys feel that domain name squatting is a good idea , considering that is essentially what Apple is trying to do ( except with advertisements instead ) .Personally , I 'd rather Apple NOT get a chunk of any money that comes out of this - it will just encourage them to try to pull this kind of bullshit for other mediums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm guessing you guys feel that domain name squatting is a good idea, considering that is essentially what Apple is trying to do (except with advertisements instead).Personally, I'd rather Apple NOT get a chunk of any money that comes out of this - it will just encourage them to try to pull this kind of bullshit for other mediums.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849125</id>
	<title>Vista!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256325780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course there is prior art. Microsoft "invented" that mandatory user interaction concept a while ago when introducing Vista UAC... Apple merely adds merely commercial value to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course there is prior art .
Microsoft " invented " that mandatory user interaction concept a while ago when introducing Vista UAC... Apple merely adds merely commercial value to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course there is prior art.
Microsoft "invented" that mandatory user interaction concept a while ago when introducing Vista UAC... Apple merely adds merely commercial value to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848349</id>
	<title>In other words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256323020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty.</p></div><p>So, best case scenario, Apple is a patent troll?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising , then Apple will get a royalty.So , best case scenario , Apple is a patent troll ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty.So, best case scenario, Apple is a patent troll?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848575</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256323980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>would like to see the Retarded tag used more often.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>would like to see the Retarded tag used more often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>would like to see the Retarded tag used more often.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850521</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256331180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Waiting for the new Mac/PC ads.<br>-----<br>Mac: Hi PC, has your new operating system crashed yet?</p><p>PC: Well, actually, with Windows 7 new state save feature..</p><p>Mac: Hold on a minute PC, I have to watch this ad from Coca-Cola.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Mac: Wow, truly wonderful beverage. What we're you saying PC?<br>------</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Waiting for the new Mac/PC ads.-----Mac : Hi PC , has your new operating system crashed yet ? PC : Well , actually , with Windows 7 new state save feature..Mac : Hold on a minute PC , I have to watch this ad from Coca-Cola .
... ... ...Mac : Wow , truly wonderful beverage .
What we 're you saying PC ? ------</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waiting for the new Mac/PC ads.-----Mac: Hi PC, has your new operating system crashed yet?PC: Well, actually, with Windows 7 new state save feature..Mac: Hold on a minute PC, I have to watch this ad from Coca-Cola.
... ... ...Mac: Wow, truly wonderful beverage.
What we're you saying PC?------</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850919</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256289540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only they could do it, but they will market it in such a way that people will want to have advertisement on their desktops before everyone else!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only they could do it , but they will market it in such a way that people will want to have advertisement on their desktops before everyone else !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only they could do it, but they will market it in such a way that people will want to have advertisement on their desktops before everyone else!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848859</id>
	<title>Is this that new?</title>
	<author>MattBD</author>
	<datestamp>1256324760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Weren't Microsoft talking about doing this years ago? It may have been in respect of Office instead of Windows, but I'm pretty sure there's plenty of prior talk about it.
I wouldn't mind a free copy of Office or Visual Studio if it was ad-supported, but I draw the line at operating systems. I would not be prepared to use an OS that bombarded me with ads - that would be enough to make me switch to Ubuntu exclusively.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were n't Microsoft talking about doing this years ago ?
It may have been in respect of Office instead of Windows , but I 'm pretty sure there 's plenty of prior talk about it .
I would n't mind a free copy of Office or Visual Studio if it was ad-supported , but I draw the line at operating systems .
I would not be prepared to use an OS that bombarded me with ads - that would be enough to make me switch to Ubuntu exclusively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weren't Microsoft talking about doing this years ago?
It may have been in respect of Office instead of Windows, but I'm pretty sure there's plenty of prior talk about it.
I wouldn't mind a free copy of Office or Visual Studio if it was ad-supported, but I draw the line at operating systems.
I would not be prepared to use an OS that bombarded me with ads - that would be enough to make me switch to Ubuntu exclusively.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848107</id>
	<title>um..</title>
	<author>kev4573</author>
	<datestamp>1256322240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this the definition of adware ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the definition of adware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the definition of adware ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848025</id>
	<title>Blocking Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are pre-empting Google by patenting this, that's all. It's coming anyway - they might as well get royalties.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are pre-empting Google by patenting this , that 's all .
It 's coming anyway - they might as well get royalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are pre-empting Google by patenting this, that's all.
It's coming anyway - they might as well get royalties.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848035</id>
	<title>I bet Google is pretty ticked off ...</title>
	<author>LaughingCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1256322060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>After all, they are the advertising kings and now they may have to pay royalties to Apple for the right to embed ads in their own Android OS. How embarrassing for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , they are the advertising kings and now they may have to pay royalties to Apple for the right to embed ads in their own Android OS .
How embarrassing for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, they are the advertising kings and now they may have to pay royalties to Apple for the right to embed ads in their own Android OS.
How embarrassing for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29854207</id>
	<title>Their next move</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1256318400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should get a patent on getting patents for just about anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should get a patent on getting patents for just about anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should get a patent on getting patents for just about anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848753</id>
	<title>For the iPhone, Perhaps?</title>
	<author>jayspec462</author>
	<datestamp>1256324460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the proliferation of ad supported free apps on the iPhone, perhaps Apple is building an ad-display framework for developers to hook into, rather than have them continually re-invent the wheel for each app.  And since it would technically be "part of the OS," perhaps this is a defensive mechanism to prevent patent trolls from pouncing once they implement it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the proliferation of ad supported free apps on the iPhone , perhaps Apple is building an ad-display framework for developers to hook into , rather than have them continually re-invent the wheel for each app .
And since it would technically be " part of the OS , " perhaps this is a defensive mechanism to prevent patent trolls from pouncing once they implement it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the proliferation of ad supported free apps on the iPhone, perhaps Apple is building an ad-display framework for developers to hook into, rather than have them continually re-invent the wheel for each app.
And since it would technically be "part of the OS," perhaps this is a defensive mechanism to prevent patent trolls from pouncing once they implement it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848905</id>
	<title>From the title...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256324880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought they were trying to patent the "I'm a Mac" ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought they were trying to patent the " I 'm a Mac " ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought they were trying to patent the "I'm a Mac" ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848975</id>
	<title>VERY original!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256325180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS already does this on Zune HD (when launching games).  I don't know anything about patent law, but I consider the Zune HD an "operating system".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS already does this on Zune HD ( when launching games ) .
I do n't know anything about patent law , but I consider the Zune HD an " operating system " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS already does this on Zune HD (when launching games).
I don't know anything about patent law, but I consider the Zune HD an "operating system".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847999</id>
	<title>I say it's a good thing!!</title>
	<author>pablo\_max</author>
	<datestamp>1256321940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be happy to have someone patent this pile of crap idea!!<br>If other people would be forced to pay them money for adding annoying crap to my OS..then perhaps they are less likely to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be happy to have someone patent this pile of crap idea !
! If other people would be forced to pay them money for adding annoying crap to my OS..then perhaps they are less likely to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be happy to have someone patent this pile of crap idea!
!If other people would be forced to pay them money for adding annoying crap to my OS..then perhaps they are less likely to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850981</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>MrMarket</author>
	<datestamp>1256289720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple. It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.</p></div><p>Wow. I admire Steve Jobs, but not to the point of denial. Jobs cares about athletics... almost as much as he cares about making money. I could easily imagine Apple selling top billing in the ap store or iTunes store to the highest bidder -- or running an ad before you get into the stores.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent ( advertising in the OS ) will have to pay through the nose to Apple .
It is in fact , the quintessential poison pill.Wow .
I admire Steve Jobs , but not to the point of denial .
Jobs cares about athletics... almost as much as he cares about making money .
I could easily imagine Apple selling top billing in the ap store or iTunes store to the highest bidder -- or running an ad before you get into the stores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple.
It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.Wow.
I admire Steve Jobs, but not to the point of denial.
Jobs cares about athletics... almost as much as he cares about making money.
I could easily imagine Apple selling top billing in the ap store or iTunes store to the highest bidder -- or running an ad before you get into the stores.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849697</id>
	<title>Calm and rational? No thanks.</title>
	<author>Twyst3d</author>
	<datestamp>1256327940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Mob after work at my place to kill Steve Jobs.  Who's in?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mob after work at my place to kill Steve Jobs .
Who 's in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Mob after work at my place to kill Steve Jobs.
Who's in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29868417</id>
	<title>Progress Bar ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256482320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carbon Copy Cloner does advertising in a brilliant and non-intrusive manner, running the ads under a progress bar most people are waiting to complete anyway.<br>I hate banner-ads and popups with a passion, but I have to admit I actually take notice of the CCC ads while cloning.</p><p>Its the one and only ad-driven application I use, being an extremely useful tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carbon Copy Cloner does advertising in a brilliant and non-intrusive manner , running the ads under a progress bar most people are waiting to complete anyway.I hate banner-ads and popups with a passion , but I have to admit I actually take notice of the CCC ads while cloning.Its the one and only ad-driven application I use , being an extremely useful tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carbon Copy Cloner does advertising in a brilliant and non-intrusive manner, running the ads under a progress bar most people are waiting to complete anyway.I hate banner-ads and popups with a passion, but I have to admit I actually take notice of the CCC ads while cloning.Its the one and only ad-driven application I use, being an extremely useful tool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847869</id>
	<title>Really stupid move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256321520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shooting themselves in the foot?....pooping over their own food?...committing ceremonial suicide?. doing that only will alienate customers to move to another OS.</p><p>One reason more to stick with Linux....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shooting themselves in the foot ? ....pooping over their own food ? ...committing ceremonial suicide ? .
doing that only will alienate customers to move to another OS.One reason more to stick with Linux... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shooting themselves in the foot?....pooping over their own food?...committing ceremonial suicide?.
doing that only will alienate customers to move to another OS.One reason more to stick with Linux....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848211</id>
	<title>Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core</title>
	<author>klubar</author>
	<datestamp>1256322600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course apple wouldn't do anything to spoil the aesthetics of the machine... unless it got in the way of a buck or two.  Apple, the company who forced downloaded (until they got caught) safari as part of a "required" update, littered itunes with forced (until they got caught) ads for the itunes store and makes it nearly impossible to install the OS (or first boot) a mac without buying<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mac.</p><p>Come on, ad supported operating systems are just around the corner.  Just google it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course apple would n't do anything to spoil the aesthetics of the machine... unless it got in the way of a buck or two .
Apple , the company who forced downloaded ( until they got caught ) safari as part of a " required " update , littered itunes with forced ( until they got caught ) ads for the itunes store and makes it nearly impossible to install the OS ( or first boot ) a mac without buying .mac.Come on , ad supported operating systems are just around the corner .
Just google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course apple wouldn't do anything to spoil the aesthetics of the machine... unless it got in the way of a buck or two.
Apple, the company who forced downloaded (until they got caught) safari as part of a "required" update, littered itunes with forced (until they got caught) ads for the itunes store and makes it nearly impossible to install the OS (or first boot) a mac without buying .mac.Come on, ad supported operating systems are just around the corner.
Just google it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848385</id>
	<title>Fails the novelty test and prior art</title>
	<author>shking</author>
	<datestamp>1256323200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this not obvious? There are already devices that lock you out until you watch some advertising. DVD players, for example. This is just a case of grafting something like "in a computer operating system" onto the description of something that's already common.
BTW - It could be argued that DVD players have a "primative" operating system</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this not obvious ?
There are already devices that lock you out until you watch some advertising .
DVD players , for example .
This is just a case of grafting something like " in a computer operating system " onto the description of something that 's already common .
BTW - It could be argued that DVD players have a " primative " operating system</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this not obvious?
There are already devices that lock you out until you watch some advertising.
DVD players, for example.
This is just a case of grafting something like "in a computer operating system" onto the description of something that's already common.
BTW - It could be argued that DVD players have a "primative" operating system</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851389</id>
	<title>Re:Oh HELL NO!</title>
	<author>^\_^x</author>
	<datestamp>1256291280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this ever happens in an OS I paid for (well... I suppose not counting the XBox 360 - maybe) then I will crusade against it to the very end.<br>If they're just tying up the patent to keep it from happening, good for them! One more reason to support them!<br>If they're doing it just so you have to pay royalties to them when advertising in normal programs... it's unethical, but I'd laugh anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this ever happens in an OS I paid for ( well... I suppose not counting the XBox 360 - maybe ) then I will crusade against it to the very end.If they 're just tying up the patent to keep it from happening , good for them !
One more reason to support them ! If they 're doing it just so you have to pay royalties to them when advertising in normal programs... it 's unethical , but I 'd laugh anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this ever happens in an OS I paid for (well... I suppose not counting the XBox 360 - maybe) then I will crusade against it to the very end.If they're just tying up the patent to keep it from happening, good for them!
One more reason to support them!If they're doing it just so you have to pay royalties to them when advertising in normal programs... it's unethical, but I'd laugh anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848235</id>
	<title>Screw you apple</title>
	<author>Turzyx</author>
	<datestamp>1256322660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And screw all the pretentious Mac/iPhone/iPod/iFoTM users that got them where they are today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And screw all the pretentious Mac/iPhone/iPod/iFoTM users that got them where they are today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And screw all the pretentious Mac/iPhone/iPod/iFoTM users that got them where they are today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848533</id>
	<title>Re:I Suppose This is Good</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1256323860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since this patent pretty much describes Google's core business model, I assume Apple is simply doing it as a way of keeping Google at bay.  Do you seriously think a company which is as minimalist with its design as Apple would scatter ads over the desktop?  No, they're just adding an idea to a patent portfolio as a bargaining chip when/if Google tries to implement this idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this patent pretty much describes Google 's core business model , I assume Apple is simply doing it as a way of keeping Google at bay .
Do you seriously think a company which is as minimalist with its design as Apple would scatter ads over the desktop ?
No , they 're just adding an idea to a patent portfolio as a bargaining chip when/if Google tries to implement this idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this patent pretty much describes Google's core business model, I assume Apple is simply doing it as a way of keeping Google at bay.
Do you seriously think a company which is as minimalist with its design as Apple would scatter ads over the desktop?
No, they're just adding an idea to a patent portfolio as a bargaining chip when/if Google tries to implement this idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853665</id>
	<title>ehh don't think so</title>
	<author>Robocoastie</author>
	<datestamp>1256309520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like MSFT's patents they are not the first to do it (and once again being software its based on math which has already been ruled can't be patented). In this case Windows OS's have had this ability since evil Active-x was created, we see it happen on spyware/adware affected pc's and even in running chat programs like Yahoo chat and MSN chat. Therefore because 1) Math isn't patantable, therefore software can't be patented and 2) Apple is not the first to do this I don't believe this "patent" should be allowed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like MSFT 's patents they are not the first to do it ( and once again being software its based on math which has already been ruled ca n't be patented ) .
In this case Windows OS 's have had this ability since evil Active-x was created , we see it happen on spyware/adware affected pc 's and even in running chat programs like Yahoo chat and MSN chat .
Therefore because 1 ) Math is n't patantable , therefore software ca n't be patented and 2 ) Apple is not the first to do this I do n't believe this " patent " should be allowed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like MSFT's patents they are not the first to do it (and once again being software its based on math which has already been ruled can't be patented).
In this case Windows OS's have had this ability since evil Active-x was created, we see it happen on spyware/adware affected pc's and even in running chat programs like Yahoo chat and MSN chat.
Therefore because 1) Math isn't patantable, therefore software can't be patented and 2) Apple is not the first to do this I don't believe this "patent" should be allowed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849479</id>
	<title>Advertisements....</title>
	<author>amoeba1911</author>
	<datestamp>1256327100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because making something shitty and marketing the hell out of it is more profitable than making something worthwhile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because making something shitty and marketing the hell out of it is more profitable than making something worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because making something shitty and marketing the hell out of it is more profitable than making something worthwhile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850351</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>zugarekd</author>
	<datestamp>1256330580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be nice to see this implemented on medical devices.  KFC ad on your heart monitor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice to see this implemented on medical devices .
KFC ad on your heart monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice to see this implemented on medical devices.
KFC ad on your heart monitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850779</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>ciej</author>
	<datestamp>1256288940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?</p></div><p>Just means the ads will be pretty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple , a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics , good design , and usability , would put ads in their operating system ? Just means the ads will be pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?Just means the ads will be pretty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849217</id>
	<title>Re:I for one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256326140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, are you confused, or just a Microsoft employee? Apple's "customer relations" are consistently the best in the business. Have been for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , are you confused , or just a Microsoft employee ?
Apple 's " customer relations " are consistently the best in the business .
Have been for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, are you confused, or just a Microsoft employee?
Apple's "customer relations" are consistently the best in the business.
Have been for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29857207</id>
	<title>PTO should deny as obvious</title>
	<author>dwheeler</author>
	<datestamp>1256404080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The PTO *should* will deny this application as obvious.  This tries to patent disabling computer functionality when an ad runs.  Lots of web sites already do this... you often can't see the "real" content without sitting through an ad.  DVD players have been doing this too.
Of course, for the last number of years the PTO has decided that its job is to grant the maximum number of patents to patent requestors, and NOT to protect the public from invalid patents,
so expecting the PTO to follow common sense may be asking for too much.
Sigh.
I actually think patents have a place, but if we must continue to have nonsense like software patents and business method patents, it may be better to eliminate the patent system entirely; unless the Supreme Court can scale them back, they patent system is causing more harm than good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The PTO * should * will deny this application as obvious .
This tries to patent disabling computer functionality when an ad runs .
Lots of web sites already do this... you often ca n't see the " real " content without sitting through an ad .
DVD players have been doing this too .
Of course , for the last number of years the PTO has decided that its job is to grant the maximum number of patents to patent requestors , and NOT to protect the public from invalid patents , so expecting the PTO to follow common sense may be asking for too much .
Sigh . I actually think patents have a place , but if we must continue to have nonsense like software patents and business method patents , it may be better to eliminate the patent system entirely ; unless the Supreme Court can scale them back , they patent system is causing more harm than good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PTO *should* will deny this application as obvious.
This tries to patent disabling computer functionality when an ad runs.
Lots of web sites already do this... you often can't see the "real" content without sitting through an ad.
DVD players have been doing this too.
Of course, for the last number of years the PTO has decided that its job is to grant the maximum number of patents to patent requestors, and NOT to protect the public from invalid patents,
so expecting the PTO to follow common sense may be asking for too much.
Sigh.
I actually think patents have a place, but if we must continue to have nonsense like software patents and business method patents, it may be better to eliminate the patent system entirely; unless the Supreme Court can scale them back, they patent system is causing more harm than good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849569</id>
	<title>Here's your prior art</title>
	<author>pvera</author>
	<datestamp>1256327460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the dot com days there was a company that was probably called Freepc.com or something really similar. There was no gimmick: you filled a really long marketing questionnaire, and if you fit certain profiles you were sent a free PC. It was yours to keep as long as you surfed the net X hours per month (it was very low, probably 10 hrs) and you kept whatever made Windows 95/98 or whatever it had to display the ads.</p><p>I signed up for it and yup, they sent me one at zero cost to me. It was a cheap Compaq with a 15 or 15 inch monitor. But what the hell, it was free!</p><p>The screen was setup so about 800x600 was usable, with the rest of the 1024x768 full of ads. I set it up for my wife and it worked pretty good for as long as we had it. The ads were displayed based on your marketing profile. Most of the time the ads were very relevant.</p><p>Eventually that company died, and they gave us the computers because it was too expensive to have them shipped back and disposed through a liquidator. As soon as they went belly up, it became my testbed for SuSe, which it ran really damn nice for a long time. It wasn't fast, but it was very usable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the dot com days there was a company that was probably called Freepc.com or something really similar .
There was no gimmick : you filled a really long marketing questionnaire , and if you fit certain profiles you were sent a free PC .
It was yours to keep as long as you surfed the net X hours per month ( it was very low , probably 10 hrs ) and you kept whatever made Windows 95/98 or whatever it had to display the ads.I signed up for it and yup , they sent me one at zero cost to me .
It was a cheap Compaq with a 15 or 15 inch monitor .
But what the hell , it was free ! The screen was setup so about 800x600 was usable , with the rest of the 1024x768 full of ads .
I set it up for my wife and it worked pretty good for as long as we had it .
The ads were displayed based on your marketing profile .
Most of the time the ads were very relevant.Eventually that company died , and they gave us the computers because it was too expensive to have them shipped back and disposed through a liquidator .
As soon as they went belly up , it became my testbed for SuSe , which it ran really damn nice for a long time .
It was n't fast , but it was very usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the dot com days there was a company that was probably called Freepc.com or something really similar.
There was no gimmick: you filled a really long marketing questionnaire, and if you fit certain profiles you were sent a free PC.
It was yours to keep as long as you surfed the net X hours per month (it was very low, probably 10 hrs) and you kept whatever made Windows 95/98 or whatever it had to display the ads.I signed up for it and yup, they sent me one at zero cost to me.
It was a cheap Compaq with a 15 or 15 inch monitor.
But what the hell, it was free!The screen was setup so about 800x600 was usable, with the rest of the 1024x768 full of ads.
I set it up for my wife and it worked pretty good for as long as we had it.
The ads were displayed based on your marketing profile.
Most of the time the ads were very relevant.Eventually that company died, and they gave us the computers because it was too expensive to have them shipped back and disposed through a liquidator.
As soon as they went belly up, it became my testbed for SuSe, which it ran really damn nice for a long time.
It wasn't fast, but it was very usable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851689</id>
	<title>when will the appleites  ever FOAD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256292420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ye gads this gets worse day by day  will someone please crush apple before they get and more frikin air assed ideas  and people think M$ Corp are bad thems pussy cats  when put next to apple    wake up people else you will all be dacnicing to some jerkoff's ideas unable to use equipment YOU paid for with YOUR HARD earned CASH because some ouik somewhere has bunged jobsie and his bed mates a few bucks to fuck with your gear</p><p>Think people then do something about it .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ye gads this gets worse day by day will someone please crush apple before they get and more frikin air assed ideas and people think M $ Corp are bad thems pussy cats when put next to apple wake up people else you will all be dacnicing to some jerkoff 's ideas unable to use equipment YOU paid for with YOUR HARD earned CASH because some ouik somewhere has bunged jobsie and his bed mates a few bucks to fuck with your gearThink people then do something about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ye gads this gets worse day by day  will someone please crush apple before they get and more frikin air assed ideas  and people think M$ Corp are bad thems pussy cats  when put next to apple    wake up people else you will all be dacnicing to some jerkoff's ideas unable to use equipment YOU paid for with YOUR HARD earned CASH because some ouik somewhere has bunged jobsie and his bed mates a few bucks to fuck with your gearThink people then do something about it .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849375</id>
	<title>prior art: nvidia X driver</title>
	<author>sofar</author>
	<datestamp>1256326680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd think that the nvidia logo displayed by Xorg at startup might qualify as prior art. as part of Xorg, it is arguably part of the OS, and stops the progress of the OS while it is displayed on screen. it certainly is advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd think that the nvidia logo displayed by Xorg at startup might qualify as prior art .
as part of Xorg , it is arguably part of the OS , and stops the progress of the OS while it is displayed on screen .
it certainly is advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd think that the nvidia logo displayed by Xorg at startup might qualify as prior art.
as part of Xorg, it is arguably part of the OS, and stops the progress of the OS while it is displayed on screen.
it certainly is advertising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848241</id>
	<title>Been There Done That...10 years ago</title>
	<author>ArhcAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1256322660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a company ( <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/1999/pulpit\_19990211\_000600.html" title="pbs.org">here</a> [pbs.org] is a link to a story Cringley did on it at the time) that gave away a desktop system with a program that loaded a "frame" around the Windows desktop that streamed advertising. You basically filled out a questionnaire about your interests and if you fit their profile you got a PC. A coworker checked everything ( I ridiculously actually put the things I was interested in) and got one of the first PC's. I think that venture lasted about six months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a company ( here [ pbs.org ] is a link to a story Cringley did on it at the time ) that gave away a desktop system with a program that loaded a " frame " around the Windows desktop that streamed advertising .
You basically filled out a questionnaire about your interests and if you fit their profile you got a PC .
A coworker checked everything ( I ridiculously actually put the things I was interested in ) and got one of the first PC 's .
I think that venture lasted about six months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a company ( here [pbs.org] is a link to a story Cringley did on it at the time) that gave away a desktop system with a program that loaded a "frame" around the Windows desktop that streamed advertising.
You basically filled out a questionnaire about your interests and if you fit their profile you got a PC.
A coworker checked everything ( I ridiculously actually put the things I was interested in) and got one of the first PC's.
I think that venture lasted about six months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849723</id>
	<title>Already beaten to the punch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256328000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft had this idea with the Channel Bar back in 1997 starting with Internet Explorer 4. Not only that, but the Channel Screen saver which displayed commercial sites. Who'd want to "save" a screen with commercialism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft had this idea with the Channel Bar back in 1997 starting with Internet Explorer 4 .
Not only that , but the Channel Screen saver which displayed commercial sites .
Who 'd want to " save " a screen with commercialism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft had this idea with the Channel Bar back in 1997 starting with Internet Explorer 4.
Not only that, but the Channel Screen saver which displayed commercial sites.
Who'd want to "save" a screen with commercialism?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848759</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Seumas</author>
	<datestamp>1256324460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I'm a little confused by this and I'm pretty sure this isn't what patents are for. Years ago, could you have really filed a patent for "displaying advertising on a television during breaks in shows" and therefore nobody else could do it without your permission? I know you can patent a certain technical methodology for accomplishing this, but you surely can't patent the entire concept?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'm a little confused by this and I 'm pretty sure this is n't what patents are for .
Years ago , could you have really filed a patent for " displaying advertising on a television during breaks in shows " and therefore nobody else could do it without your permission ?
I know you can patent a certain technical methodology for accomplishing this , but you surely ca n't patent the entire concept ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'm a little confused by this and I'm pretty sure this isn't what patents are for.
Years ago, could you have really filed a patent for "displaying advertising on a television during breaks in shows" and therefore nobody else could do it without your permission?
I know you can patent a certain technical methodology for accomplishing this, but you surely can't patent the entire concept?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851775</id>
	<title>Re:I claim prior art.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256292960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Banner ads? The single most important part?? Nah. PORN is the corner stone of the Internet. And of everything else too. What else?</p><p>Space travel: no broad success. Why? No porn!<br>TV: broad success. Why? Porn!<br>What was the difference between music in the old days, and music today? Porn! (Hot chicks / boys in pop music mainly. It should be called "porn music".)</p><p>The only thing that can compete, is food and drugs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Banner ads ?
The single most important part ? ?
Nah. PORN is the corner stone of the Internet .
And of everything else too .
What else ? Space travel : no broad success .
Why ? No porn ! TV : broad success .
Why ? Porn ! What was the difference between music in the old days , and music today ?
Porn ! ( Hot chicks / boys in pop music mainly .
It should be called " porn music " .
) The only thing that can compete , is food and drugs .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Banner ads?
The single most important part??
Nah. PORN is the corner stone of the Internet.
And of everything else too.
What else?Space travel: no broad success.
Why? No porn!TV: broad success.
Why? Porn!What was the difference between music in the old days, and music today?
Porn! (Hot chicks / boys in pop music mainly.
It should be called "porn music".
)The only thing that can compete, is food and drugs.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847783</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>FredFredrickson</author>
	<datestamp>1256321220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, stupid microsoft! what were they thinking!?
<br> <br>oh wait.. this is apple? Wow, this may actually be the final straw that made Linux win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , stupid microsoft !
what were they thinking ! ?
oh wait.. this is apple ?
Wow , this may actually be the final straw that made Linux win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, stupid microsoft!
what were they thinking!?
oh wait.. this is apple?
Wow, this may actually be the final straw that made Linux win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848653</id>
	<title>Re:Fails the novelty test and prior art</title>
	<author>OrangeMonkey11</author>
	<datestamp>1256324220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you go to site such as IGN or other gaming site whenever you play a clip you have to watch a 15-30 sec ad clip before your vid is played</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go to site such as IGN or other gaming site whenever you play a clip you have to watch a 15-30 sec ad clip before your vid is played</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go to site such as IGN or other gaming site whenever you play a clip you have to watch a 15-30 sec ad clip before your vid is played</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849121</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256325780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other words they are patent trolls. Funny how folks are "patent trolls" when they are hoarding patents and suing folks we like, but they are on our side when they do the SAME THING but the patent is for something we don't like. In this case it is probably to get money out of Chrome OS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words they are patent trolls .
Funny how folks are " patent trolls " when they are hoarding patents and suing folks we like , but they are on our side when they do the SAME THING but the patent is for something we do n't like .
In this case it is probably to get money out of Chrome OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words they are patent trolls.
Funny how folks are "patent trolls" when they are hoarding patents and suing folks we like, but they are on our side when they do the SAME THING but the patent is for something we don't like.
In this case it is probably to get money out of Chrome OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847883</id>
	<title>I for one</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1256321580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>welcome our advertising-patenting overlords.</p><p>Seriously. I hope Jobs all the best in this patent pursuit. If Apple succeeds, then I can avoid occurrences of this amazingly offensive idea by the simple expedient of avoiding Apple operating systems, a course of action I'm already pretty much committed to for ample reasons of Apple's corporate citizenship and customer relations.</p><p>As far as I'm concerned, this patent will be the legal equivalent of encysting a noxious parasite for 20 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>welcome our advertising-patenting overlords.Seriously .
I hope Jobs all the best in this patent pursuit .
If Apple succeeds , then I can avoid occurrences of this amazingly offensive idea by the simple expedient of avoiding Apple operating systems , a course of action I 'm already pretty much committed to for ample reasons of Apple 's corporate citizenship and customer relations.As far as I 'm concerned , this patent will be the legal equivalent of encysting a noxious parasite for 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>welcome our advertising-patenting overlords.Seriously.
I hope Jobs all the best in this patent pursuit.
If Apple succeeds, then I can avoid occurrences of this amazingly offensive idea by the simple expedient of avoiding Apple operating systems, a course of action I'm already pretty much committed to for ample reasons of Apple's corporate citizenship and customer relations.As far as I'm concerned, this patent will be the legal equivalent of encysting a noxious parasite for 20 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848769</id>
	<title>Another case...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256324460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of Steve Jobs being Steve Jobs.</p><p>He was an asshole back when he decided to lock everyone out the Apple (except "paying" vendors...i.e. kickbacks) resulting in IBM/compatibles and M$ kicking his ass.  He is still an asshole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of Steve Jobs being Steve Jobs.He was an asshole back when he decided to lock everyone out the Apple ( except " paying " vendors...i.e .
kickbacks ) resulting in IBM/compatibles and M $ kicking his ass .
He is still an asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of Steve Jobs being Steve Jobs.He was an asshole back when he decided to lock everyone out the Apple (except "paying" vendors...i.e.
kickbacks) resulting in IBM/compatibles and M$ kicking his ass.
He is still an asshole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849585</id>
	<title>No complaints here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256327580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you all really complaining that Apple wants to add a barrier to advertising on your hardware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you all really complaining that Apple wants to add a barrier to advertising on your hardware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you all really complaining that Apple wants to add a barrier to advertising on your hardware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848445</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256323500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?</p></div><p>Yes, I think they would do it on iPods.  I imagine in their talks with record labels they discussed many revenue streams.  One could easily be free music downloads if you're willing to watch ads on your iPod.</p><p>They could also offer two revenue models for iPhone app publishers: the current cash model or advertising.  The OS could block use of the app until the ad is run.</p><p>I don't imagine this coming to desktops, but it's definitely a possibility for their more specialized operating systems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple , a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics , good design , and usability , would put ads in their operating system ? Yes , I think they would do it on iPods .
I imagine in their talks with record labels they discussed many revenue streams .
One could easily be free music downloads if you 're willing to watch ads on your iPod.They could also offer two revenue models for iPhone app publishers : the current cash model or advertising .
The OS could block use of the app until the ad is run.I do n't imagine this coming to desktops , but it 's definitely a possibility for their more specialized operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?Yes, I think they would do it on iPods.
I imagine in their talks with record labels they discussed many revenue streams.
One could easily be free music downloads if you're willing to watch ads on your iPod.They could also offer two revenue models for iPhone app publishers: the current cash model or advertising.
The OS could block use of the app until the ad is run.I don't imagine this coming to desktops, but it's definitely a possibility for their more specialized operating systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850567</id>
	<title>This is why the patent system should stay</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1256331360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people say the patent system should be abolished.</p><p>This patent is the exact reason why the patent system should stay; companies patenting stupid ideas make it harder for competitors to implement whatever stupid idea was patented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people say the patent system should be abolished.This patent is the exact reason why the patent system should stay ; companies patenting stupid ideas make it harder for competitors to implement whatever stupid idea was patented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people say the patent system should be abolished.This patent is the exact reason why the patent system should stay; companies patenting stupid ideas make it harder for competitors to implement whatever stupid idea was patented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850645</id>
	<title>What a fucker</title>
	<author>Atrox666</author>
	<datestamp>1256288460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope his liver rejects and he dies a slow lingering painful death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope his liver rejects and he dies a slow lingering painful death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope his liver rejects and he dies a slow lingering painful death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850541</id>
	<title>Prior Art...</title>
	<author>Yuan-Lung</author>
	<datestamp>1256331240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That reminds me of the good old Windows messenger service pop-up ads....

Microsoft is probably is a good position to contest this pattern.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That reminds me of the good old Windows messenger service pop-up ads... . Microsoft is probably is a good position to contest this pattern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That reminds me of the good old Windows messenger service pop-up ads....

Microsoft is probably is a good position to contest this pattern.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848365</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256323140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, stupid microsoft! what were they thinking!?</p><p>oh wait.. this is apple? Wow, this may actually be the final straw that made Linux win <b>against Apple's Mac OS X</b>.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.  It's still a long way off from competing with Windows, in terms of market share, regardless of how awesome it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , stupid microsoft !
what were they thinking !
? oh wait.. this is apple ?
Wow , this may actually be the final straw that made Linux win against Apple 's Mac OS X.Fixed that for you .
It 's still a long way off from competing with Windows , in terms of market share , regardless of how awesome it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, stupid microsoft!
what were they thinking!
?oh wait.. this is apple?
Wow, this may actually be the final straw that made Linux win against Apple's Mac OS X.Fixed that for you.
It's still a long way off from competing with Windows, in terms of market share, regardless of how awesome it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848021</id>
	<title>I can see where this could be heading...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see a future OS (note, I'm not stating OS X explicitly, but perhaps an OS from someone who licenses this patent from Apple)  ending up with multiple versions:</p><p>A version licensed at no cost (I'm not saying free because it is not free as in beer, nor as in speech) that has modal ads pop up and take control of the machine for 30-60 seconds at a time, perhaps demanding a click or two or they start back at the beginning.</p><p>A version licensed at some charge, but none of this "ad enhanced user experience" stuff.</p><p>Of course, there could be infinite gradients, the more someone pays for the license, the fewer ads blocking them from using the machine.</p><p>Now my concerns if someone actually put this into practice:</p><p>1:  Security.  A lot of reputable sites have been bitten by third party services putting up ads from blackhats, causing infections and other mayhem.  If ads are pushed to the computer, with various code, it could be possible to just take over the computer, perhaps encrypting the user's files and then demanding a ransom.</p><p>2:  Privacy.  Usually with ad sites come infinitely persistent flash shared objects, scads of infinite life cookies, Java shared objects, and many other attempts to store stuff on a browser to identify that PC again.</p><p>3:  Interfering with what a user is doing.  Picture someone having to dial a number due to an emergency, and having to wait (and perhaps repeatedly acknowledge) some noisy ad spot about manhood supplements while a house is on fire, or there is a robbery in progress and the person is hiding under something.  I'm sure virtually everyone has had to dial 911 due to something at least sometime in the past 10 years.  Even if the number is not a 911 number, people do not have time to wait for an ad to dance on the screen before a call is connected.</p><p>4:  Call me cynical, but I'm sure that if this ad "functionality" ends up in operating systems, there will be zero reduction in costs to the consumer.  Such as how some ISP customers ended up with ads due to a transparent proxy, but their bill remained the same.  Maybe this will make some cookie cutter MBA happy for adding another revenue stream, but in reality, it will just ensure that the OS platform gets abandoned by anyone who is able to, and the remaining customers are going to be very unhappy people and not willing to buy much, if anything, from that company again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see a future OS ( note , I 'm not stating OS X explicitly , but perhaps an OS from someone who licenses this patent from Apple ) ending up with multiple versions : A version licensed at no cost ( I 'm not saying free because it is not free as in beer , nor as in speech ) that has modal ads pop up and take control of the machine for 30-60 seconds at a time , perhaps demanding a click or two or they start back at the beginning.A version licensed at some charge , but none of this " ad enhanced user experience " stuff.Of course , there could be infinite gradients , the more someone pays for the license , the fewer ads blocking them from using the machine.Now my concerns if someone actually put this into practice : 1 : Security .
A lot of reputable sites have been bitten by third party services putting up ads from blackhats , causing infections and other mayhem .
If ads are pushed to the computer , with various code , it could be possible to just take over the computer , perhaps encrypting the user 's files and then demanding a ransom.2 : Privacy .
Usually with ad sites come infinitely persistent flash shared objects , scads of infinite life cookies , Java shared objects , and many other attempts to store stuff on a browser to identify that PC again.3 : Interfering with what a user is doing .
Picture someone having to dial a number due to an emergency , and having to wait ( and perhaps repeatedly acknowledge ) some noisy ad spot about manhood supplements while a house is on fire , or there is a robbery in progress and the person is hiding under something .
I 'm sure virtually everyone has had to dial 911 due to something at least sometime in the past 10 years .
Even if the number is not a 911 number , people do not have time to wait for an ad to dance on the screen before a call is connected.4 : Call me cynical , but I 'm sure that if this ad " functionality " ends up in operating systems , there will be zero reduction in costs to the consumer .
Such as how some ISP customers ended up with ads due to a transparent proxy , but their bill remained the same .
Maybe this will make some cookie cutter MBA happy for adding another revenue stream , but in reality , it will just ensure that the OS platform gets abandoned by anyone who is able to , and the remaining customers are going to be very unhappy people and not willing to buy much , if anything , from that company again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see a future OS (note, I'm not stating OS X explicitly, but perhaps an OS from someone who licenses this patent from Apple)  ending up with multiple versions:A version licensed at no cost (I'm not saying free because it is not free as in beer, nor as in speech) that has modal ads pop up and take control of the machine for 30-60 seconds at a time, perhaps demanding a click or two or they start back at the beginning.A version licensed at some charge, but none of this "ad enhanced user experience" stuff.Of course, there could be infinite gradients, the more someone pays for the license, the fewer ads blocking them from using the machine.Now my concerns if someone actually put this into practice:1:  Security.
A lot of reputable sites have been bitten by third party services putting up ads from blackhats, causing infections and other mayhem.
If ads are pushed to the computer, with various code, it could be possible to just take over the computer, perhaps encrypting the user's files and then demanding a ransom.2:  Privacy.
Usually with ad sites come infinitely persistent flash shared objects, scads of infinite life cookies, Java shared objects, and many other attempts to store stuff on a browser to identify that PC again.3:  Interfering with what a user is doing.
Picture someone having to dial a number due to an emergency, and having to wait (and perhaps repeatedly acknowledge) some noisy ad spot about manhood supplements while a house is on fire, or there is a robbery in progress and the person is hiding under something.
I'm sure virtually everyone has had to dial 911 due to something at least sometime in the past 10 years.
Even if the number is not a 911 number, people do not have time to wait for an ad to dance on the screen before a call is connected.4:  Call me cynical, but I'm sure that if this ad "functionality" ends up in operating systems, there will be zero reduction in costs to the consumer.
Such as how some ISP customers ended up with ads due to a transparent proxy, but their bill remained the same.
Maybe this will make some cookie cutter MBA happy for adding another revenue stream, but in reality, it will just ensure that the OS platform gets abandoned by anyone who is able to, and the remaining customers are going to be very unhappy people and not willing to buy much, if anything, from that company again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850723</id>
	<title>I totally misconstrued what this patent was for...</title>
	<author>Sviergn</author>
	<datestamp>1256288700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I erroneously assumed this was a patent concerning advertising ABOUT operating systems. Meaning that Microsoft could be restrained from referencing Apple's patented "I'm an X"--"And I'm a Y" ad pattern in their own ads.

This might work out better for Microsoft because in saying that their users "are PC's" (having them exclaim "I'm a PC" in their commercials) they are dehumanizing their own user base, reducing them to the status of objects rather than people. Clue time: Justin Long and John Hodgman aren't supposed to be USERS of Macs and PCs, they are human representations of a Mac and a PC, anthropomorphized metaphors. When Microsoft makes their users shout "I'm a PC" they objectify their customers and imply that they are mechanistic devices rather than people. I use a Mac--that doesn't mean I *am* a Mac. But apparently according to Microsoft using a PC makes you become one. Meaning that... you get "stuck" when trying to accomplish more than one task, "crash" regularly, and are subject to rabid infection from a wide variety of easy-to-avoid ailments.

Anyone proud to say "I'm a PC" is an idiot--who would want to represent themselves as a mere machine? (Apparently users of Windows... according to the very company which makes that product.) It just shows the lack of imagination in the minds of people who work at Microsoft in thinking that users should think of themselves AS the machines they use. Do they also scream "I'm a Buick!" or "I'm a Maytag!"???</htmltext>
<tokenext>I erroneously assumed this was a patent concerning advertising ABOUT operating systems .
Meaning that Microsoft could be restrained from referencing Apple 's patented " I 'm an X " -- " And I 'm a Y " ad pattern in their own ads .
This might work out better for Microsoft because in saying that their users " are PC 's " ( having them exclaim " I 'm a PC " in their commercials ) they are dehumanizing their own user base , reducing them to the status of objects rather than people .
Clue time : Justin Long and John Hodgman are n't supposed to be USERS of Macs and PCs , they are human representations of a Mac and a PC , anthropomorphized metaphors .
When Microsoft makes their users shout " I 'm a PC " they objectify their customers and imply that they are mechanistic devices rather than people .
I use a Mac--that does n't mean I * am * a Mac .
But apparently according to Microsoft using a PC makes you become one .
Meaning that... you get " stuck " when trying to accomplish more than one task , " crash " regularly , and are subject to rabid infection from a wide variety of easy-to-avoid ailments .
Anyone proud to say " I 'm a PC " is an idiot--who would want to represent themselves as a mere machine ?
( Apparently users of Windows... according to the very company which makes that product .
) It just shows the lack of imagination in the minds of people who work at Microsoft in thinking that users should think of themselves AS the machines they use .
Do they also scream " I 'm a Buick !
" or " I 'm a Maytag ! " ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I erroneously assumed this was a patent concerning advertising ABOUT operating systems.
Meaning that Microsoft could be restrained from referencing Apple's patented "I'm an X"--"And I'm a Y" ad pattern in their own ads.
This might work out better for Microsoft because in saying that their users "are PC's" (having them exclaim "I'm a PC" in their commercials) they are dehumanizing their own user base, reducing them to the status of objects rather than people.
Clue time: Justin Long and John Hodgman aren't supposed to be USERS of Macs and PCs, they are human representations of a Mac and a PC, anthropomorphized metaphors.
When Microsoft makes their users shout "I'm a PC" they objectify their customers and imply that they are mechanistic devices rather than people.
I use a Mac--that doesn't mean I *am* a Mac.
But apparently according to Microsoft using a PC makes you become one.
Meaning that... you get "stuck" when trying to accomplish more than one task, "crash" regularly, and are subject to rabid infection from a wide variety of easy-to-avoid ailments.
Anyone proud to say "I'm a PC" is an idiot--who would want to represent themselves as a mere machine?
(Apparently users of Windows... according to the very company which makes that product.
) It just shows the lack of imagination in the minds of people who work at Microsoft in thinking that users should think of themselves AS the machines they use.
Do they also scream "I'm a Buick!
" or "I'm a Maytag!"??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847961</id>
	<title>Let them do whatever they want</title>
	<author>habib.moukalled</author>
	<datestamp>1256321820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If such a pointless idea succeeds, more people will begin using FreeBSD and Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)


But seriously...  I like apple 0 \% (The hardware is over priced and the operating system is derived from a free OS).  No matter what they may say, they are a company trying to make money. Thus, apple is not an innocent party,  they are just watching out for their own skin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If such a pointless idea succeeds , more people will begin using FreeBSD and Linux ; ) But seriously... I like apple 0 \ % ( The hardware is over priced and the operating system is derived from a free OS ) .
No matter what they may say , they are a company trying to make money .
Thus , apple is not an innocent party , they are just watching out for their own skin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If such a pointless idea succeeds, more people will begin using FreeBSD and Linux ;)


But seriously...  I like apple 0 \% (The hardware is over priced and the operating system is derived from a free OS).
No matter what they may say, they are a company trying to make money.
Thus, apple is not an innocent party,  they are just watching out for their own skin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>geekmansworld</author>
	<datestamp>1256321880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system? Not likely. Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips? There were no "Intel Inside" stickers for Macs.</p><p>I think the poster and the first commenter have it right: this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple. It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple , a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics , good design , and usability , would put ads in their operating system ?
Not likely .
Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips ?
There were no " Intel Inside " stickers for Macs.I think the poster and the first commenter have it right : this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent ( advertising in the OS ) will have to pay through the nose to Apple .
It is in fact , the quintessential poison pill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?
Not likely.
Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips?
There were no "Intel Inside" stickers for Macs.I think the poster and the first commenter have it right: this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple.
It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848451</id>
	<title>excellent!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256323500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally a compelling reason to dust off my old abacus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally a compelling reason to dust off my old abacus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally a compelling reason to dust off my old abacus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849241</id>
	<title>Free Apple Computers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256326200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may not be the future of advertising, but it may be the future of free Apple products...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may not be the future of advertising , but it may be the future of free Apple products.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may not be the future of advertising, but it may be the future of free Apple products...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849911</id>
	<title>Apple patents a lot of things</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1256328900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And a number of them are simply so noone else can use the idea.  Hopefully, this is one such patent that Apple plans to never use, and will enfore so that noone else does either.</p><p>Using a patent to regulate the behavior of your competitors for the better of all...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And a number of them are simply so noone else can use the idea .
Hopefully , this is one such patent that Apple plans to never use , and will enfore so that noone else does either.Using a patent to regulate the behavior of your competitors for the better of all... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And a number of them are simply so noone else can use the idea.
Hopefully, this is one such patent that Apple plans to never use, and will enfore so that noone else does either.Using a patent to regulate the behavior of your competitors for the better of all... :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853055</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>stuboogie</author>
	<datestamp>1256302980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, usability, and <b>marketing</b> would put ads in their operating system?"<br> <br>
Fixed that for you.<br> <br>
While this may truly be a defensive filing, I don't think it is that far fetched that a control-crazed company like Apple wouldn't use this in some fashion. As long as the ads are for Apple products and services, I'm sure Steve Jobs sees nothing wrong with it.<br> <br>
iAds...coming soon to OS X 10.7 Frozen Kitten</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple , a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics , good design , usability , and marketing would put ads in their operating system ?
" Fixed that for you .
While this may truly be a defensive filing , I do n't think it is that far fetched that a control-crazed company like Apple would n't use this in some fashion .
As long as the ads are for Apple products and services , I 'm sure Steve Jobs sees nothing wrong with it .
iAds...coming soon to OS X 10.7 Frozen Kitten</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, usability, and marketing would put ads in their operating system?
" 
Fixed that for you.
While this may truly be a defensive filing, I don't think it is that far fetched that a control-crazed company like Apple wouldn't use this in some fashion.
As long as the ads are for Apple products and services, I'm sure Steve Jobs sees nothing wrong with it.
iAds...coming soon to OS X 10.7 Frozen Kitten</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847865</id>
	<title>I Suppose This is Good</title>
	<author>nmb3000</author>
	<datestamp>1256321520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As somebody who avoids Apple products I hope they are granted the patent and it is vigorously enforced.  If a company wants to pursue such amazingly stupid advertising techniques like these, I'd be just fine with having them confined to the Apple product line.  (What I find interesting is Steve Jobs being listed as the "inventor".  Does he have nothing better to do than sit around and come up with ways to screw over his customers?)</p><p>Even better is requiring other companies (who also wish to shoot themselves in the face) to pay to license the technology. Stupid company + expensive licensing fees + lost customers = failed stupid company == the system works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As somebody who avoids Apple products I hope they are granted the patent and it is vigorously enforced .
If a company wants to pursue such amazingly stupid advertising techniques like these , I 'd be just fine with having them confined to the Apple product line .
( What I find interesting is Steve Jobs being listed as the " inventor " .
Does he have nothing better to do than sit around and come up with ways to screw over his customers ?
) Even better is requiring other companies ( who also wish to shoot themselves in the face ) to pay to license the technology .
Stupid company + expensive licensing fees + lost customers = failed stupid company = = the system works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As somebody who avoids Apple products I hope they are granted the patent and it is vigorously enforced.
If a company wants to pursue such amazingly stupid advertising techniques like these, I'd be just fine with having them confined to the Apple product line.
(What I find interesting is Steve Jobs being listed as the "inventor".
Does he have nothing better to do than sit around and come up with ways to screw over his customers?
)Even better is requiring other companies (who also wish to shoot themselves in the face) to pay to license the technology.
Stupid company + expensive licensing fees + lost customers = failed stupid company == the system works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847935</id>
	<title>Big Brother advertising...</title>
	<author>INeededALogin</author>
	<datestamp>1256321760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising</i> <br> <br>
The Big Brother metaphor has finally been dealt its final blow.  Big Brother advertising is propaganda.  I think a better term for this new patent would be "Jerk Advertising"</htmltext>
<tokenext>company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising The Big Brother metaphor has finally been dealt its final blow .
Big Brother advertising is propaganda .
I think a better term for this new patent would be " Jerk Advertising "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising  
The Big Brother metaphor has finally been dealt its final blow.
Big Brother advertising is propaganda.
I think a better term for this new patent would be "Jerk Advertising"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29852673</id>
	<title>Ad quality concern</title>
	<author>dUN82</author>
	<datestamp>1256298840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it really depend on the quality of the ad you push through to my face, I don't watch US TV simply because I want to escape from intellectually insulting ad bombardment. Something is deeply rotted with the US TV operation model ! I prefer to watch the BBC via its iPlayer. Further, I think they have been 'testing' the technique quite some time now on the display mac in Apple Stores, don't they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it really depend on the quality of the ad you push through to my face , I do n't watch US TV simply because I want to escape from intellectually insulting ad bombardment .
Something is deeply rotted with the US TV operation model !
I prefer to watch the BBC via its iPlayer .
Further , I think they have been 'testing ' the technique quite some time now on the display mac in Apple Stores , do n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it really depend on the quality of the ad you push through to my face, I don't watch US TV simply because I want to escape from intellectually insulting ad bombardment.
Something is deeply rotted with the US TV operation model !
I prefer to watch the BBC via its iPlayer.
Further, I think they have been 'testing' the technique quite some time now on the display mac in Apple Stores, don't they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850603</id>
	<title>1984</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256331480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the same company that had the famous "1984 won't be like 1984" ad?</p><p>Invasion of privacy FTW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the same company that had the famous " 1984 wo n't be like 1984 " ad ? Invasion of privacy FTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the same company that had the famous "1984 won't be like 1984" ad?Invasion of privacy FTW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848883</id>
	<title>Thank you for using the iPhone AD-OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256324820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Thank you for using iPhone AD-OS. Before connecting your call to caller 'Nine One One', let's hear a word from our sponsor. You can bypass the ad by pressing 1#. Standard ad-bypass rates will apply. Your call will connect momentarily."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thank you for using iPhone AD-OS .
Before connecting your call to caller 'Nine One One ' , let 's hear a word from our sponsor .
You can bypass the ad by pressing 1 # .
Standard ad-bypass rates will apply .
Your call will connect momentarily .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thank you for using iPhone AD-OS.
Before connecting your call to caller 'Nine One One', let's hear a word from our sponsor.
You can bypass the ad by pressing 1#.
Standard ad-bypass rates will apply.
Your call will connect momentarily.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848427</id>
	<title>Re:I Suppose This is Good</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1256323380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was under the impression that Apple listed Steve Jobs as the first inventor on all patent applications they filed.  Am I wrong?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that Apple listed Steve Jobs as the first inventor on all patent applications they filed .
Am I wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that Apple listed Steve Jobs as the first inventor on all patent applications they filed.
Am I wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29855647</id>
	<title>No thanks</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1256389680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No ads please. If a vendor starts forcing ads on me I won't buy their product. I've got real work to do. Anything that distracts me from my work is expensive and not appreciated. If Apple does this they'll lose me, and a lot of other people who are doing real work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No ads please .
If a vendor starts forcing ads on me I wo n't buy their product .
I 've got real work to do .
Anything that distracts me from my work is expensive and not appreciated .
If Apple does this they 'll lose me , and a lot of other people who are doing real work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No ads please.
If a vendor starts forcing ads on me I won't buy their product.
I've got real work to do.
Anything that distracts me from my work is expensive and not appreciated.
If Apple does this they'll lose me, and a lot of other people who are doing real work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29861341</id>
	<title>Re:I claim prior art.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256394900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to piss on your parade, but some poorly drawn cartoon with failed attempts at humor does not constitute prior art in the context of this patent application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to piss on your parade , but some poorly drawn cartoon with failed attempts at humor does not constitute prior art in the context of this patent application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to piss on your parade, but some poorly drawn cartoon with failed attempts at humor does not constitute prior art in the context of this patent application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853447</id>
	<title>Re:I claim prior art.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256306940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A comic strip is not prior art.</p><p>Having the idea outlined in the preamble is not prior art.</p><p>Having spent some time thinking about a system to achieve the claims is not prior art.</p><p>Having developed what is taught in the specification, which achieves in fact the scope claimed, is prior art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A comic strip is not prior art.Having the idea outlined in the preamble is not prior art.Having spent some time thinking about a system to achieve the claims is not prior art.Having developed what is taught in the specification , which achieves in fact the scope claimed , is prior art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A comic strip is not prior art.Having the idea outlined in the preamble is not prior art.Having spent some time thinking about a system to achieve the claims is not prior art.Having developed what is taught in the specification, which achieves in fact the scope claimed, is prior art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850121</id>
	<title>My prediction:</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1256329620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hulu (or similar service) tells your OS that it is running an ad for a show you are streaming.  Your OS locks you out as your computer turns into a television while the ad runs.   Once the ad finishes, your show starts up again, and you have access to your computer again.</p><p>I'm not saying I like that AT ALL, but that is what I think this ad is for.  To prevent people from muting their computers, or ignoring ads.</p><p>I do my part and write a letter to any company that blocks the mute button or even worse, includes 'interactive' advertisements.  I let them know that I will avoid their product and encourage all of my friends and family to do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hulu ( or similar service ) tells your OS that it is running an ad for a show you are streaming .
Your OS locks you out as your computer turns into a television while the ad runs .
Once the ad finishes , your show starts up again , and you have access to your computer again.I 'm not saying I like that AT ALL , but that is what I think this ad is for .
To prevent people from muting their computers , or ignoring ads.I do my part and write a letter to any company that blocks the mute button or even worse , includes 'interactive ' advertisements .
I let them know that I will avoid their product and encourage all of my friends and family to do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hulu (or similar service) tells your OS that it is running an ad for a show you are streaming.
Your OS locks you out as your computer turns into a television while the ad runs.
Once the ad finishes, your show starts up again, and you have access to your computer again.I'm not saying I like that AT ALL, but that is what I think this ad is for.
To prevent people from muting their computers, or ignoring ads.I do my part and write a letter to any company that blocks the mute button or even worse, includes 'interactive' advertisements.
I let them know that I will avoid their product and encourage all of my friends and family to do the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850149</id>
	<title>Apple=MS=Google=SCO=EVIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256329740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>topic says it all; film at 11</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>topic says it all ; film at 11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>topic says it all; film at 11</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849577</id>
	<title>Ads displayed in OS..</title>
	<author>coyoles</author>
	<datestamp>1256327520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Steve Jobs is probably looking at giving away a version of the OS (or software) for free in the future that will pay for itself via ads...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs is probably looking at giving away a version of the OS ( or software ) for free in the future that will pay for itself via ads.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs is probably looking at giving away a version of the OS (or software) for free in the future that will pay for itself via ads...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848013</id>
	<title>Prior Art:</title>
	<author>iYk6</author>
	<datestamp>1256322000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is prior art from 2002: <a href="http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/10/bsod\_ads.html" title="bbspot.com">http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/10/bsod\_ads.html</a> [bbspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is prior art from 2002 : http : //www.bbspot.com/News/2002/10/bsod \ _ads.html [ bbspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is prior art from 2002: http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/10/bsod\_ads.html [bbspot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29860331</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256383680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips? There were no "Intel Inside" stickers for Macs."</p><p>Yes, but by the time Apple switched to Intel, there were no "Intel Inside" stickers on most computers.  Do Apple computers still ship with Apple stickers in the box?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips ?
There were no " Intel Inside " stickers for Macs .
" Yes , but by the time Apple switched to Intel , there were no " Intel Inside " stickers on most computers .
Do Apple computers still ship with Apple stickers in the box ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips?
There were no "Intel Inside" stickers for Macs.
"Yes, but by the time Apple switched to Intel, there were no "Intel Inside" stickers on most computers.
Do Apple computers still ship with Apple stickers in the box?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848831</id>
	<title>Re:Apple... maybe rotten to the (dual) core</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256324700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If by "nearly impossible" you mean checking the radio button that says "no thanks, I don't want to try<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mac now" then I'm amazed you could even find the power button to boot the Mac up in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If by " nearly impossible " you mean checking the radio button that says " no thanks , I do n't want to try .mac now " then I 'm amazed you could even find the power button to boot the Mac up in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by "nearly impossible" you mean checking the radio button that says "no thanks, I don't want to try .mac now" then I'm amazed you could even find the power button to boot the Mac up in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848285</id>
	<title>Late 90's</title>
	<author>future assassin</author>
	<datestamp>1256322840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There were a lot of companies doing or trying to offer advertising in free computers or free Internet access. If someone has copies of The Computer Paper from Canada from the late 90's and early 2000 there should be ads in there for those kinds of offers.
<br>
<a href="http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/business/275213.stm" title="bbc.com">http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/business/275213.stm</a> [bbc.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There were a lot of companies doing or trying to offer advertising in free computers or free Internet access .
If someone has copies of The Computer Paper from Canada from the late 90 's and early 2000 there should be ads in there for those kinds of offers .
http : //usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/business/275213.stm [ bbc.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were a lot of companies doing or trying to offer advertising in free computers or free Internet access.
If someone has copies of The Computer Paper from Canada from the late 90's and early 2000 there should be ads in there for those kinds of offers.
http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/business/275213.stm [bbc.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850473</id>
	<title>Re:I claim prior art.</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1256331000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but that doesn't even read on the independent claim, which requires that the OS disables some function first, displays an ad, and then enables the disabled function in response to the ad ending.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but that does n't even read on the independent claim , which requires that the OS disables some function first , displays an ad , and then enables the disabled function in response to the ad ending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but that doesn't even read on the independent claim, which requires that the OS disables some function first, displays an ad, and then enables the disabled function in response to the ad ending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849179</id>
	<title>Mac needs advertising in its OS</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1256325960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the Mac is in need of advertising inside the OS. I mean, how else is Apple going to make up for its low price, especially the low-priced hardware? Mac users need to pay for this luxury in some way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Mac is in need of advertising inside the OS .
I mean , how else is Apple going to make up for its low price , especially the low-priced hardware ?
Mac users need to pay for this luxury in some way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Mac is in need of advertising inside the OS.
I mean, how else is Apple going to make up for its low price, especially the low-priced hardware?
Mac users need to pay for this luxury in some way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848237</id>
	<title>Google not MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is to prevent someone else from doing it, I would guess that's it's directed at Google's Android Desktop and not Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is to prevent someone else from doing it , I would guess that 's it 's directed at Google 's Android Desktop and not Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is to prevent someone else from doing it, I would guess that's it's directed at Google's Android Desktop and not Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851643</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1256292240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability</p></div><p>That's only what they want to be perceived as. Apple fanboys would probably even support this shit if it came to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics , good design , and usabilityThat 's only what they want to be perceived as .
Apple fanboys would probably even support this shit if it came to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usabilityThat's only what they want to be perceived as.
Apple fanboys would probably even support this shit if it came to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853653</id>
	<title>maybe, just maybe</title>
	<author>qzulla</author>
	<datestamp>1256309400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple wants the patent so they can kill it by not licensing it. That would be bad on the iPhone.</p><p>qz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple wants the patent so they can kill it by not licensing it .
That would be bad on the iPhone.qz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple wants the patent so they can kill it by not licensing it.
That would be bad on the iPhone.qz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850959</id>
	<title>Futurama</title>
	<author>mordejai</author>
	<datestamp>1256289660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leela: Didn't you have ad's in the 20th century?<br>Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines. And movies. And at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No siree!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leela : Did n't you have ad 's in the 20th century ? Fry : Well sure , but not in our dreams .
Only on TV and radio .
And in magazines .
And movies .
And at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts and written on the sky .
But not in dreams .
No siree !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leela: Didn't you have ad's in the 20th century?Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams.
Only on TV and radio.
And in magazines.
And movies.
And at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts and written on the sky.
But not in dreams.
No siree!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851883</id>
	<title>It's a free country</title>
	<author>straponego</author>
	<datestamp>1256293500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're welcome to implement any feature they want.  It's just business, nothing personal.<br><br>But if Apple *does* implement that particular feature, I will join Al Queda.  Just sayin'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're welcome to implement any feature they want .
It 's just business , nothing personal.But if Apple * does * implement that particular feature , I will join Al Queda .
Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're welcome to implement any feature they want.
It's just business, nothing personal.But if Apple *does* implement that particular feature, I will join Al Queda.
Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29860403</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256384280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this really Unique?  I thought that the Virus writers of yesterday used to do this.  I remember one friend who had a virus on his laptop years ago - he had nothing but advertising popping up on his screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this really Unique ?
I thought that the Virus writers of yesterday used to do this .
I remember one friend who had a virus on his laptop years ago - he had nothing but advertising popping up on his screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this really Unique?
I thought that the Virus writers of yesterday used to do this.
I remember one friend who had a virus on his laptop years ago - he had nothing but advertising popping up on his screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849353</id>
	<title>I approve!</title>
	<author>jsac</author>
	<datestamp>1256326620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I definitely approve of companies patenting technology I never want to see anywhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I definitely approve of companies patenting technology I never want to see anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I definitely approve of companies patenting technology I never want to see anywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849035</id>
	<title>New Ad based business model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256325420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a great idea!  TV was supported by Ads in the early day why not the same with your phone?  Watch 3 ads get 30 secs of air time.  Muhahahahah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a great idea !
TV was supported by Ads in the early day why not the same with your phone ?
Watch 3 ads get 30 secs of air time .
Muhahahahah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a great idea!
TV was supported by Ads in the early day why not the same with your phone?
Watch 3 ads get 30 secs of air time.
Muhahahahah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849781</id>
	<title>using OS as TV front end</title>
	<author>steverar</author>
	<datestamp>1256328300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It "sort of" makes sense if the whole OS is a front end to TV.  Although a minimalist browser piping ads is probably just as good.
That said, a process/thread/whatever running and piping ads to a windows is patentable ?  Jeez, if it's configurable I'd configure it to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It " sort of " makes sense if the whole OS is a front end to TV .
Although a minimalist browser piping ads is probably just as good .
That said , a process/thread/whatever running and piping ads to a windows is patentable ?
Jeez , if it 's configurable I 'd configure it to /dev/null .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It "sort of" makes sense if the whole OS is a front end to TV.
Although a minimalist browser piping ads is probably just as good.
That said, a process/thread/whatever running and piping ads to a windows is patentable ?
Jeez, if it's configurable I'd configure it to /dev/null.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29871525</id>
	<title>Re:Fails the novelty test and prior art</title>
	<author>tsj5j</author>
	<datestamp>1256567160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The most brilliant of innovations are seemingly obvious.

The iPhone is (in essence) touch screen + phone, a combination of two commonly used components.
However, is it not innovative?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most brilliant of innovations are seemingly obvious .
The iPhone is ( in essence ) touch screen + phone , a combination of two commonly used components .
However , is it not innovative ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most brilliant of innovations are seemingly obvious.
The iPhone is (in essence) touch screen + phone, a combination of two commonly used components.
However, is it not innovative?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848945</id>
	<title>I want to patent my idea!</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1256325060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My idea is to create an adblocker for advertising in operating systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My idea is to create an adblocker for advertising in operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My idea is to create an adblocker for advertising in operating systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848267</id>
	<title>Oh HELL NO!</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1256322720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>..so software that creates unwanted advertising pop-ups is called "malware" and the authors of such are prosecuted, but then someone decides to write an operating system that does that <i>by design</i>!? What sort of Bizzarro universe did I wake up into this morning anyway? No fucking way, not even if the OS is <i>free</i> would I put up with that shit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>..so software that creates unwanted advertising pop-ups is called " malware " and the authors of such are prosecuted , but then someone decides to write an operating system that does that by design ! ?
What sort of Bizzarro universe did I wake up into this morning anyway ?
No fucking way , not even if the OS is free would I put up with that shit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..so software that creates unwanted advertising pop-ups is called "malware" and the authors of such are prosecuted, but then someone decides to write an operating system that does that by design!?
What sort of Bizzarro universe did I wake up into this morning anyway?
No fucking way, not even if the OS is free would I put up with that shit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847885</id>
	<title>End-run</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256321580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>on a variety of devices, including desktop computers, cell phones, PDAs, and more.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...gaming devices. This is a reaction to all the similar crape being patented &amp; implemented for games. Hardware lock-in is an Apple fixation, so this was just a natural, dare I say obvious, patent.</p><p>Go Steve! Finish your life <i>"selling sugared water to children"</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>on a variety of devices , including desktop computers , cell phones , PDAs , and more .
...gaming devices .
This is a reaction to all the similar crape being patented &amp; implemented for games .
Hardware lock-in is an Apple fixation , so this was just a natural , dare I say obvious , patent.Go Steve !
Finish your life " selling sugared water to children " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on a variety of devices, including desktop computers, cell phones, PDAs, and more.
...gaming devices.
This is a reaction to all the similar crape being patented &amp; implemented for games.
Hardware lock-in is an Apple fixation, so this was just a natural, dare I say obvious, patent.Go Steve!
Finish your life "selling sugared water to children".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29869277</id>
	<title>Right...</title>
	<author>dwightk</author>
	<datestamp>1256495640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...because reading Apple's patents is a 100\% guaranteed way to see what they will do in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...because reading Apple 's patents is a 100 \ % guaranteed way to see what they will do in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because reading Apple's patents is a 100\% guaranteed way to see what they will do in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848357</id>
	<title>Malware?</title>
	<author>colin\_faber</author>
	<datestamp>1256323080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So is this possibly an attempt to establish a legal avenue to go after some of these malware venders? Interestingly also, could malware be consider prior art?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is this possibly an attempt to establish a legal avenue to go after some of these malware venders ?
Interestingly also , could malware be consider prior art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is this possibly an attempt to establish a legal avenue to go after some of these malware venders?
Interestingly also, could malware be consider prior art?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723</id>
	<title>I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>AtomicDevice</author>
	<datestamp>1256320980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really hope they get the patent because then nobody else will be able to do it.
<br> <br>
In other news, I use linux?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really hope they get the patent because then nobody else will be able to do it .
In other news , I use linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really hope they get the patent because then nobody else will be able to do it.
In other news, I use linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853251</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1256304900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well aesthetics anyway...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well aesthetics anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well aesthetics anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849519</id>
	<title>How is this concept different than...</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1256327280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... what the movie distributors do to us when we load a DVD into our player and we're forced -- by disabling all the remote control buttons -- to watch advertisements and/or previews for other DVDs?  We recently rented a DVD that disallowed us from using the player's Pause button giving us the option of letting dinner get cold or resuming our viewing by searching for where we left off. (That disc didn't even have a scene menu; we had to fast forward -- oddly, that button still worked -- through the entire first half of the movie to resume watching it.)

</p><p>So Apple thinks it's a good idea to be able to force you to watch ads while a cellphone is booting before it becomes functional?  Let's say you're out on the street late one night and something horrible happens. Imagine the publicity -- and the inevitable close-the-doors-and-sell-all-the-furniture-you-are-now-bankrupt lawsuit -- when someone is robbed and killed or they die from a heart attack and it comes out that they were forced to wait for their cellphone to finish displaying an ad before they could dial 911. We can only hope that Apple only decided to patent this is because they plan on demanding licensing fees that are so outrageous that nobody on the panet would ever even consider developing such a function into their devices.

</p><p>(When are those OSS-based cellphones coming out? November? I can hardly wait.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... what the movie distributors do to us when we load a DVD into our player and we 're forced -- by disabling all the remote control buttons -- to watch advertisements and/or previews for other DVDs ?
We recently rented a DVD that disallowed us from using the player 's Pause button giving us the option of letting dinner get cold or resuming our viewing by searching for where we left off .
( That disc did n't even have a scene menu ; we had to fast forward -- oddly , that button still worked -- through the entire first half of the movie to resume watching it .
) So Apple thinks it 's a good idea to be able to force you to watch ads while a cellphone is booting before it becomes functional ?
Let 's say you 're out on the street late one night and something horrible happens .
Imagine the publicity -- and the inevitable close-the-doors-and-sell-all-the-furniture-you-are-now-bankrupt lawsuit -- when someone is robbed and killed or they die from a heart attack and it comes out that they were forced to wait for their cellphone to finish displaying an ad before they could dial 911 .
We can only hope that Apple only decided to patent this is because they plan on demanding licensing fees that are so outrageous that nobody on the panet would ever even consider developing such a function into their devices .
( When are those OSS-based cellphones coming out ?
November ? I can hardly wait .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... what the movie distributors do to us when we load a DVD into our player and we're forced -- by disabling all the remote control buttons -- to watch advertisements and/or previews for other DVDs?
We recently rented a DVD that disallowed us from using the player's Pause button giving us the option of letting dinner get cold or resuming our viewing by searching for where we left off.
(That disc didn't even have a scene menu; we had to fast forward -- oddly, that button still worked -- through the entire first half of the movie to resume watching it.
)

So Apple thinks it's a good idea to be able to force you to watch ads while a cellphone is booting before it becomes functional?
Let's say you're out on the street late one night and something horrible happens.
Imagine the publicity -- and the inevitable close-the-doors-and-sell-all-the-furniture-you-are-now-bankrupt lawsuit -- when someone is robbed and killed or they die from a heart attack and it comes out that they were forced to wait for their cellphone to finish displaying an ad before they could dial 911.
We can only hope that Apple only decided to patent this is because they plan on demanding licensing fees that are so outrageous that nobody on the panet would ever even consider developing such a function into their devices.
(When are those OSS-based cellphones coming out?
November? I can hardly wait.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848023</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>camperslo</author>
	<datestamp>1256322000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of the "free computers" of 1990 or so, with some of the screen space taken up by extra ads.  I think that was just when running the browser though.</p><p>The same users that went for those "discounted" PCs with an AOL contract obligation might opt for other cheaper hardware with an ad hook-in subsidizing the purchase.</p><p>27" iMacs turning into billboards... hmmmm...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the " free computers " of 1990 or so , with some of the screen space taken up by extra ads .
I think that was just when running the browser though.The same users that went for those " discounted " PCs with an AOL contract obligation might opt for other cheaper hardware with an ad hook-in subsidizing the purchase.27 " iMacs turning into billboards... hmmmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the "free computers" of 1990 or so, with some of the screen space taken up by extra ads.
I think that was just when running the browser though.The same users that went for those "discounted" PCs with an AOL contract obligation might opt for other cheaper hardware with an ad hook-in subsidizing the purchase.27" iMacs turning into billboards... hmmmm...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849381</id>
	<title>Here's a though</title>
	<author>Alanbly</author>
	<datestamp>1256326740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would personally be happy to view an add every hour or so if they gave me a free top-of the line laptop to do it on</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would personally be happy to view an add every hour or so if they gave me a free top-of the line laptop to do it on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would personally be happy to view an add every hour or so if they gave me a free top-of the line laptop to do it on</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848457</id>
	<title>Re:I Suppose This is Good</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1256323560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I find interesting is Steve Jobs being listed as the "inventor". Does he have nothing better to do than sit around and come up with ways to screw over his customers?</p></div><p>In all fairness, turtlenecks don't buy themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find interesting is Steve Jobs being listed as the " inventor " .
Does he have nothing better to do than sit around and come up with ways to screw over his customers ? In all fairness , turtlenecks do n't buy themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find interesting is Steve Jobs being listed as the "inventor".
Does he have nothing better to do than sit around and come up with ways to screw over his customers?In all fairness, turtlenecks don't buy themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29852831</id>
	<title>Re:Prior Art:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256300580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't all "Adware" prior art? View ads to use? Why would an operating system be anything else?</p><p>I don't have time to search but I thought even Microsoft (!) toyed around with that idea for certain "developing markets"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't all " Adware " prior art ?
View ads to use ?
Why would an operating system be anything else ? I do n't have time to search but I thought even Microsoft ( !
) toyed around with that idea for certain " developing markets " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't all "Adware" prior art?
View ads to use?
Why would an operating system be anything else?I don't have time to search but I thought even Microsoft (!
) toyed around with that idea for certain "developing markets"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850247</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256330220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has, for some time, pushed the latest iLife version as an in-app pop up ad that you have to click "don't show this again" or it keeps popping up every time you launch iPhoto/iDVD.</p><p>I found it quite annoying and I don't put it past them to patent this so they can sue other companies who do the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has , for some time , pushed the latest iLife version as an in-app pop up ad that you have to click " do n't show this again " or it keeps popping up every time you launch iPhoto/iDVD.I found it quite annoying and I do n't put it past them to patent this so they can sue other companies who do the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has, for some time, pushed the latest iLife version as an in-app pop up ad that you have to click "don't show this again" or it keeps popping up every time you launch iPhoto/iDVD.I found it quite annoying and I don't put it past them to patent this so they can sue other companies who do the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849141</id>
	<title>Simple Answer</title>
	<author>gpronger</author>
	<datestamp>1256325840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe that's what the off button is for. Or pulling the battery.<br> <br>
And if it would come to fruition, then it would be time for a new unit without this bunch of bull.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that 's what the off button is for .
Or pulling the battery .
And if it would come to fruition , then it would be time for a new unit without this bunch of bull .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that's what the off button is for.
Or pulling the battery.
And if it would come to fruition, then it would be time for a new unit without this bunch of bull.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847913</id>
	<title>Oh please god no....</title>
	<author>gabereiser</author>
	<datestamp>1256321640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't want my desktop invaded by ads.  It's bad enough I have to sit through 30 seconds of ads when watching hulu videos or even sometimes youtube videos.  Who ever came up with this idea needs a good 'ol shot in the face.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want my desktop invaded by ads .
It 's bad enough I have to sit through 30 seconds of ads when watching hulu videos or even sometimes youtube videos .
Who ever came up with this idea needs a good 'ol shot in the face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want my desktop invaded by ads.
It's bad enough I have to sit through 30 seconds of ads when watching hulu videos or even sometimes youtube videos.
Who ever came up with this idea needs a good 'ol shot in the face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849027</id>
	<title>Re:Oh HELL NO!</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1256325360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>..so software that creates unwanted advertising pop-ups is called "malware" and the authors of such are prosecuted...</p></div><p>It's only called malware and prosecuted if it is deceptively marketed. If you offer a software package designed to show people ads and are upfront about that and it is what users want or it offers a benefit in addition to the ads which users feel outweighs the cost of seeing ads then it is not malware at all. For example, lots of Web apps are partly or completely subsidized by advertising and are not malware.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but then someone decides to write an operating system that does that by design!?</p></div><p>Maybe, but if someone does then you are free to buy it or not and so long as they are not deceptively marketing it, it is certainly not illegal. A lot of people would probably be willing to go for a free copy of Windows 7 that came with ads built in, especially in poorer areas of the world.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No fucking way, not even if the OS is free would I put up with that shit!</p></div><p>Yeah, you and a huge chunk of the consumer market is uninterested in such an offering. I know I'm not. I plan on not buying/acquiring it and letting other people do whatever they want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..so software that creates unwanted advertising pop-ups is called " malware " and the authors of such are prosecuted...It 's only called malware and prosecuted if it is deceptively marketed .
If you offer a software package designed to show people ads and are upfront about that and it is what users want or it offers a benefit in addition to the ads which users feel outweighs the cost of seeing ads then it is not malware at all .
For example , lots of Web apps are partly or completely subsidized by advertising and are not malware .
...but then someone decides to write an operating system that does that by design !
? Maybe , but if someone does then you are free to buy it or not and so long as they are not deceptively marketing it , it is certainly not illegal .
A lot of people would probably be willing to go for a free copy of Windows 7 that came with ads built in , especially in poorer areas of the world.No fucking way , not even if the OS is free would I put up with that shit ! Yeah , you and a huge chunk of the consumer market is uninterested in such an offering .
I know I 'm not .
I plan on not buying/acquiring it and letting other people do whatever they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ..so software that creates unwanted advertising pop-ups is called "malware" and the authors of such are prosecuted...It's only called malware and prosecuted if it is deceptively marketed.
If you offer a software package designed to show people ads and are upfront about that and it is what users want or it offers a benefit in addition to the ads which users feel outweighs the cost of seeing ads then it is not malware at all.
For example, lots of Web apps are partly or completely subsidized by advertising and are not malware.
...but then someone decides to write an operating system that does that by design!
?Maybe, but if someone does then you are free to buy it or not and so long as they are not deceptively marketing it, it is certainly not illegal.
A lot of people would probably be willing to go for a free copy of Windows 7 that came with ads built in, especially in poorer areas of the world.No fucking way, not even if the OS is free would I put up with that shit!Yeah, you and a huge chunk of the consumer market is uninterested in such an offering.
I know I'm not.
I plan on not buying/acquiring it and letting other people do whatever they want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29857591</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1256407080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could imagine them using it in a very sensible place: the AppleTV.  It could allow them to offer a Hulu-like service with free downloads of TV shows, provided you're willing to watch ads during normal commercial breaks.  Of course, the media companies would only agree to such a deal if Apple could offer strong assurances that users would actually be forced to watch the ads and not bypass them somehow.
</p><p>And how would that really be different or worse than Hulu or cable TV?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could imagine them using it in a very sensible place : the AppleTV .
It could allow them to offer a Hulu-like service with free downloads of TV shows , provided you 're willing to watch ads during normal commercial breaks .
Of course , the media companies would only agree to such a deal if Apple could offer strong assurances that users would actually be forced to watch the ads and not bypass them somehow .
And how would that really be different or worse than Hulu or cable TV ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could imagine them using it in a very sensible place: the AppleTV.
It could allow them to offer a Hulu-like service with free downloads of TV shows, provided you're willing to watch ads during normal commercial breaks.
Of course, the media companies would only agree to such a deal if Apple could offer strong assurances that users would actually be forced to watch the ads and not bypass them somehow.
And how would that really be different or worse than Hulu or cable TV?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848249</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1256322660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?</p></div><p>And marketing.  Don't forget marketing.  Maybe Apple wants to show <i>their own ads</i>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple , a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics , good design , and usability , would put ads in their operating system ? And marketing .
Do n't forget marketing .
Maybe Apple wants to show their own ads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?And marketing.
Don't forget marketing.
Maybe Apple wants to show their own ads?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847867</id>
	<title>I claim prior art.</title>
	<author>brennanw</author>
	<datestamp>1256321520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step" title="ubersoft.net">http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step</a> [ubersoft.net]</p><p><a href="http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step-ii" title="ubersoft.net">http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step-ii</a> [ubersoft.net]</p><p>Apple, if you really want to go forward with this please have your lawyers shower me with cash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step [ ubersoft.net ] http : //www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step-ii [ ubersoft.net ] Apple , if you really want to go forward with this please have your lawyers shower me with cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step [ubersoft.net]http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2000/12/next-logical-step-ii [ubersoft.net]Apple, if you really want to go forward with this please have your lawyers shower me with cash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851181</id>
	<title>The only reason Apple exists...</title>
	<author>Simonetta</author>
	<datestamp>1256290380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason Apple exists is to transfer money from the bank accounts of overpaid yuppies dazzled by babbles to the bank account of Steven Jobs.  This company doesn't do anything that isn't done cheaper and better by many others.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; This has been obvious for a long time to anyone with half a brain.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Steven Jobs is God's way of telling us that we have too many stupid yuppies running around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason Apple exists is to transfer money from the bank accounts of overpaid yuppies dazzled by babbles to the bank account of Steven Jobs .
This company does n't do anything that is n't done cheaper and better by many others .
    This has been obvious for a long time to anyone with half a brain .
    Steven Jobs is God 's way of telling us that we have too many stupid yuppies running around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason Apple exists is to transfer money from the bank accounts of overpaid yuppies dazzled by babbles to the bank account of Steven Jobs.
This company doesn't do anything that isn't done cheaper and better by many others.
    This has been obvious for a long time to anyone with half a brain.
    Steven Jobs is God's way of telling us that we have too many stupid yuppies running around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848383</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256323200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this be a pre-emptive blow against any Google OS?  I wouldn't put it past Google to include targeted advertisements in some form in whatever desktop OS they're working on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this be a pre-emptive blow against any Google OS ?
I would n't put it past Google to include targeted advertisements in some form in whatever desktop OS they 're working on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this be a pre-emptive blow against any Google OS?
I wouldn't put it past Google to include targeted advertisements in some form in whatever desktop OS they're working on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849797</id>
	<title>Re:Oh HELL NO!</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1256328360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are not the center of the world. I am convinced there are people out there who would love to have the chance to have a computer if it meant dealing with some pesky advertising. Not everyone has the opportunities you may have to own a computer and get ahead in life. Think of the children!
<br>
Many of you speak like you are powerless lemmings. Apple won't implement something that its paying users don't want. The dollar has the ultimate voting power, and the corporations listen when you vote with your dollar. If you don't approve &mdash; don't buy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not the center of the world .
I am convinced there are people out there who would love to have the chance to have a computer if it meant dealing with some pesky advertising .
Not everyone has the opportunities you may have to own a computer and get ahead in life .
Think of the children !
Many of you speak like you are powerless lemmings .
Apple wo n't implement something that its paying users do n't want .
The dollar has the ultimate voting power , and the corporations listen when you vote with your dollar .
If you do n't approve    do n't buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not the center of the world.
I am convinced there are people out there who would love to have the chance to have a computer if it meant dealing with some pesky advertising.
Not everyone has the opportunities you may have to own a computer and get ahead in life.
Think of the children!
Many of you speak like you are powerless lemmings.
Apple won't implement something that its paying users don't want.
The dollar has the ultimate voting power, and the corporations listen when you vote with your dollar.
If you don't approve — don't buy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848005</id>
	<title>Oh yeah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256321940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Whether Apple would implement such an invention is unknown, but it is possible that they think there are others out there who might want to implement such invasive advertising.   It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty. I sure hope this is not the future of advertising.</i></p><p>Riiiiiight.  Hey, anything is possible.</p><p>My first thought was "I wonder if it is possible to apply for a patent with a spoofed name", you know, to make someone look bad.  But in view of the money grubbing BS that can no more be removed from the Apple Experience than missing features and brushed aluminum, I have not trouble believing that Apple is interested in this kind of "monetizing".</p><p>Call me a cynic.  I got another word for anyone who believes that Apples is reserving this concept in order to protect users from someone else implementing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether Apple would implement such an invention is unknown , but it is possible that they think there are others out there who might want to implement such invasive advertising .
It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising , then Apple will get a royalty .
I sure hope this is not the future of advertising.Riiiiiight .
Hey , anything is possible.My first thought was " I wonder if it is possible to apply for a patent with a spoofed name " , you know , to make someone look bad .
But in view of the money grubbing BS that can no more be removed from the Apple Experience than missing features and brushed aluminum , I have not trouble believing that Apple is interested in this kind of " monetizing " .Call me a cynic .
I got another word for anyone who believes that Apples is reserving this concept in order to protect users from someone else implementing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether Apple would implement such an invention is unknown, but it is possible that they think there are others out there who might want to implement such invasive advertising.
It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty.
I sure hope this is not the future of advertising.Riiiiiight.
Hey, anything is possible.My first thought was "I wonder if it is possible to apply for a patent with a spoofed name", you know, to make someone look bad.
But in view of the money grubbing BS that can no more be removed from the Apple Experience than missing features and brushed aluminum, I have not trouble believing that Apple is interested in this kind of "monetizing".Call me a cynic.
I got another word for anyone who believes that Apples is reserving this concept in order to protect users from someone else implementing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29890341</id>
	<title>Mandy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256642520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just clicked on a random wikipedia article, and thought maybe they are trying to compete with mircosoft in the advertising department.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScreenTonic</p><p>Basically microsoft bought a company involved in sending ads to people's mobile phones.</p><p>-Mandy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just clicked on a random wikipedia article , and thought maybe they are trying to compete with mircosoft in the advertising department.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScreenTonicBasically microsoft bought a company involved in sending ads to people 's mobile phones.-Mandy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just clicked on a random wikipedia article, and thought maybe they are trying to compete with mircosoft in the advertising department.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScreenTonicBasically microsoft bought a company involved in sending ads to people's mobile phones.-Mandy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851939</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Kopachris</author>
	<datestamp>1256293800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  I doubt Apple would actually implement advertising in their OS because their customer loyalty is based on good service since their customers pay a premium.  If Apple gets this patent and doesn't use it, then no one else would be able either (without Apple's permission).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I doubt Apple would actually implement advertising in their OS because their customer loyalty is based on good service since their customers pay a premium .
If Apple gets this patent and does n't use it , then no one else would be able either ( without Apple 's permission ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I doubt Apple would actually implement advertising in their OS because their customer loyalty is based on good service since their customers pay a premium.
If Apple gets this patent and doesn't use it, then no one else would be able either (without Apple's permission).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848401</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1256323260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?</p></div><p>Uh, yeah.  One reason why I think they would do this is because they got a patent to do this.  Weird, I know.  I'm sure they'll come up with a wonderfully-designed, aesthetically-pleasing, usable* interface for showing advertisements.</p><p>It may shock you to realize this, but Apple is actually a for-profit corporation which, like other for-profit corporations, is focused on maximizing revenue.</p><p>*Usable for the advertisers, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple , a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics , good design , and usability , would put ads in their operating system ? Uh , yeah .
One reason why I think they would do this is because they got a patent to do this .
Weird , I know .
I 'm sure they 'll come up with a wonderfully-designed , aesthetically-pleasing , usable * interface for showing advertisements.It may shock you to realize this , but Apple is actually a for-profit corporation which , like other for-profit corporations , is focused on maximizing revenue .
* Usable for the advertisers , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?Uh, yeah.
One reason why I think they would do this is because they got a patent to do this.
Weird, I know.
I'm sure they'll come up with a wonderfully-designed, aesthetically-pleasing, usable* interface for showing advertisements.It may shock you to realize this, but Apple is actually a for-profit corporation which, like other for-profit corporations, is focused on maximizing revenue.
*Usable for the advertisers, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848099</id>
	<title>Smart move by Apple</title>
	<author>hotcorrado169</author>
	<datestamp>1256322240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is a great move by Apple, I don't believe they would use these sort of tactics on Apple products. It looks to me like they want block or cash in on other companies like M$ or Google using such advertising in products such as Android. This really helps people like myself who have Android phones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a great move by Apple , I do n't believe they would use these sort of tactics on Apple products .
It looks to me like they want block or cash in on other companies like M $ or Google using such advertising in products such as Android .
This really helps people like myself who have Android phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a great move by Apple, I don't believe they would use these sort of tactics on Apple products.
It looks to me like they want block or cash in on other companies like M$ or Google using such advertising in products such as Android.
This really helps people like myself who have Android phones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848931</id>
	<title>Oh, no!</title>
	<author>ctrl-alt-canc</author>
	<datestamp>1256325000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now we will see soon a beowulf cluster of advertisements...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we will see soon a beowulf cluster of advertisements.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we will see soon a beowulf cluster of advertisements...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853627</id>
	<title>Re:Fails the novelty test and prior art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256309220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because a monkey could use it or because a monkey could have written it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because a monkey could use it or because a monkey could have written it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because a monkey could use it or because a monkey could have written it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849055</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1256325480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system? Not likely. Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips? There were no "Intel Inside" stickers for Macs.</p><p>I think the poster and the first commenter have it right: this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple. It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.</p></div><p>To anyone who's at all familiar with Apple's product line, it's patently obvious <a href="http://www.apple.com/appletv/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">which product</a> [apple.com] this patent is for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple , a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics , good design , and usability , would put ads in their operating system ?
Not likely .
Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips ?
There were no " Intel Inside " stickers for Macs.I think the poster and the first commenter have it right : this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent ( advertising in the OS ) will have to pay through the nose to Apple .
It is in fact , the quintessential poison pill.To anyone who 's at all familiar with Apple 's product line , it 's patently obvious which product [ apple.com ] this patent is for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?
Not likely.
Remember when Apple switched to Intel chips?
There were no "Intel Inside" stickers for Macs.I think the poster and the first commenter have it right: this is a protection measure to make sure that any company stupid enough to try and set this precedent (advertising in the OS) will have to pay through the nose to Apple.
It is in fact, the quintessential poison pill.To anyone who's at all familiar with Apple's product line, it's patently obvious which product [apple.com] this patent is for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29856619</id>
	<title>Laguna Beach woman Jeans,DG Handbags,Air Yeezy Fem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256399160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Specializing in retro Jordans, Nike SB, Nike Air Force 1.Check out our line at You can check out our FULL line at Sole on Ice 475 W. San Carlos Street in Downtown San Jose, Ca. 95113 Sole on Ice is a Consignment center specializing in bringing you the elite lines through out the past two decades.All shoes are 100\% authentic. We do not sell, accept, or deal with fakes or factory variants.If interested in selling through consignment please contact us</p><p>
&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; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</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; Http://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Specializing in retro Jordans , Nike SB , Nike Air Force 1.Check out our line at You can check out our FULL line at Sole on Ice 475 W. San Carlos Street in Downtown San Jose , Ca .
95113 Sole on Ice is a Consignment center specializing in bringing you the elite lines through out the past two decades.All shoes are 100 \ % authentic .
We do not sell , accept , or deal with fakes or factory variants.If interested in selling through consignment please contact us   OUR WEBSITE :                                                         YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                                 MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com                                                                         Http : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specializing in retro Jordans, Nike SB, Nike Air Force 1.Check out our line at You can check out our FULL line at Sole on Ice 475 W. San Carlos Street in Downtown San Jose, Ca.
95113 Sole on Ice is a Consignment center specializing in bringing you the elite lines through out the past two decades.All shoes are 100\% authentic.
We do not sell, accept, or deal with fakes or factory variants.If interested in selling through consignment please contact us
  OUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
                                                                        Http://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848665</id>
	<title>Minority Report</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256324220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In one alarming aspect, the device could be disabled while the advertisements run, thereby forcing users to let the advertisement run its course before the system would unlock and allow further use.</p></div></blockquote><p>The scene from minority report where you see the overhead view of the building. There's a black couple fighting, but they stop briefly while they are probed by the spiders!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In one alarming aspect , the device could be disabled while the advertisements run , thereby forcing users to let the advertisement run its course before the system would unlock and allow further use.The scene from minority report where you see the overhead view of the building .
There 's a black couple fighting , but they stop briefly while they are probed by the spiders !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In one alarming aspect, the device could be disabled while the advertisements run, thereby forcing users to let the advertisement run its course before the system would unlock and allow further use.The scene from minority report where you see the overhead view of the building.
There's a black couple fighting, but they stop briefly while they are probed by the spiders!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848651</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1256324220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?</i></p><p>Have you used iTunes lately?  Ugh.  Their design and usability practices are clearly not universal within the company...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple , a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics , good design , and usability , would put ads in their operating system ? Have you used iTunes lately ?
Ugh. Their design and usability practices are clearly not universal within the company.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone in this thread really think that Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?Have you used iTunes lately?
Ugh.  Their design and usability practices are clearly not universal within the company...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849759</id>
	<title>Isn't this why...</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1256328180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this kind of thing the exact reason windows was so insecure?  Perhaps a misunderstanding but I thought the "openess" of windows for marketing was a major factor in it's insecure nature.</p><p>Is anyone else tired of the constant squeezing of the consumer via advertising?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this kind of thing the exact reason windows was so insecure ?
Perhaps a misunderstanding but I thought the " openess " of windows for marketing was a major factor in it 's insecure nature.Is anyone else tired of the constant squeezing of the consumer via advertising ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this kind of thing the exact reason windows was so insecure?
Perhaps a misunderstanding but I thought the "openess" of windows for marketing was a major factor in it's insecure nature.Is anyone else tired of the constant squeezing of the consumer via advertising?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848209</id>
	<title>Re:I sure hope they get this patent</title>
	<author>k\_187</author>
	<datestamp>1256322600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They might not put it in their desktop OSes, but sounds to me like this is made for the iPhone and an official ADs api for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They might not put it in their desktop OSes , but sounds to me like this is made for the iPhone and an official ADs api for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They might not put it in their desktop OSes, but sounds to me like this is made for the iPhone and an official ADs api for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849731</id>
	<title>public computers</title>
	<author>forceofyoda</author>
	<datestamp>1256328000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I was going to put a free-to-use computer in, say, a mall, then I might do something like this.  Could this be what Apple is planning to do?  I mean, what better way to advertise your own hardware than to put one in every shop for people to use?  People get more used to seeing them everywhere, so they buy one for their home.  Plus, the bonus money from advertisers is nice, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was going to put a free-to-use computer in , say , a mall , then I might do something like this .
Could this be what Apple is planning to do ?
I mean , what better way to advertise your own hardware than to put one in every shop for people to use ?
People get more used to seeing them everywhere , so they buy one for their home .
Plus , the bonus money from advertisers is nice , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was going to put a free-to-use computer in, say, a mall, then I might do something like this.
Could this be what Apple is planning to do?
I mean, what better way to advertise your own hardware than to put one in every shop for people to use?
People get more used to seeing them everywhere, so they buy one for their home.
Plus, the bonus money from advertisers is nice, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29852737</id>
	<title>Good luck with that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256299320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to concisely DEFINE an OS first, I suspect that will be the greatest difficulty.    Anyone can add advertising to an OS, what determines that it's "within" it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to concisely DEFINE an OS first , I suspect that will be the greatest difficulty .
Anyone can add advertising to an OS , what determines that it 's " within " it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to concisely DEFINE an OS first, I suspect that will be the greatest difficulty.
Anyone can add advertising to an OS, what determines that it's "within" it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849491</id>
	<title>Officer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256327160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I tried to slow down, but my breaks wouldn't work until the advertising was done playing.</p><p>Oh, you too?</p><p>In your squad car?!?</p><p>While you were chasing down a speeder?</p><p>The license plate said STVJBS?</p><p>So maybe that was the plan all along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I tried to slow down , but my breaks would n't work until the advertising was done playing.Oh , you too ? In your squad car ? !
? While you were chasing down a speeder ? The license plate said STVJBS ? So maybe that was the plan all along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I tried to slow down, but my breaks wouldn't work until the advertising was done playing.Oh, you too?In your squad car?!
?While you were chasing down a speeder?The license plate said STVJBS?So maybe that was the plan all along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850735</id>
	<title>Subsidized OS / Device?</title>
	<author>Fatal67</author>
	<datestamp>1256288760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess I am not seeing the issue here.</p><p>If a company wanted to offer an 'advertising subsidized' device or OS and wanted to ensure that you watched the ads you agreed to when you agreed to the free / discounted device terms, this would be the way to do it.</p><p>This patent sounds like it would be used in such a device and not randomly inserted in to your normal OS installs.</p><p>If you could get an Apple product at a greatly reduced rate by watching a 30 second ad each time you boot it, would you agree to such a thing? Even if you wouldn't use it, would you be against others having that option? If you think having a subsidized device would be a good option for anyone, why would you be against Apple being to enfore the terms that were agreed upon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess I am not seeing the issue here.If a company wanted to offer an 'advertising subsidized ' device or OS and wanted to ensure that you watched the ads you agreed to when you agreed to the free / discounted device terms , this would be the way to do it.This patent sounds like it would be used in such a device and not randomly inserted in to your normal OS installs.If you could get an Apple product at a greatly reduced rate by watching a 30 second ad each time you boot it , would you agree to such a thing ?
Even if you would n't use it , would you be against others having that option ?
If you think having a subsidized device would be a good option for anyone , why would you be against Apple being to enfore the terms that were agreed upon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess I am not seeing the issue here.If a company wanted to offer an 'advertising subsidized' device or OS and wanted to ensure that you watched the ads you agreed to when you agreed to the free / discounted device terms, this would be the way to do it.This patent sounds like it would be used in such a device and not randomly inserted in to your normal OS installs.If you could get an Apple product at a greatly reduced rate by watching a 30 second ad each time you boot it, would you agree to such a thing?
Even if you wouldn't use it, would you be against others having that option?
If you think having a subsidized device would be a good option for anyone, why would you be against Apple being to enfore the terms that were agreed upon?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848853</id>
	<title>Google's Chrome OS</title>
	<author>FunkyELF</author>
	<datestamp>1256324760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would bet a lot of money on the fact that advertising giant Google's Chrome OS would have this built in.<br>If I understand patents correctly, they don't need to patent it to be protected as long as they have been working on it for a while and can prove it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would bet a lot of money on the fact that advertising giant Google 's Chrome OS would have this built in.If I understand patents correctly , they do n't need to patent it to be protected as long as they have been working on it for a while and can prove it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would bet a lot of money on the fact that advertising giant Google's Chrome OS would have this built in.If I understand patents correctly, they don't need to patent it to be protected as long as they have been working on it for a while and can prove it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29860331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29857591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29861341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29852831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29871525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29860403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_1456221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29861341
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29871525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847985
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848445
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29860403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848211
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29857591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848249
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848651
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29853251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29860331
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848255
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29850351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29852831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29851939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29848349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29847883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_1456221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_1456221.29849911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
