<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_02_1557212</id>
	<title>Apple Sues HTC For 20 Patent Violations In Phones</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267548300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Taiwanese HTC is <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/apple-goes-after-htc-in-lawsuit-over-20-iphone-patents/">being sued by Apple</a> for 20 patents regarding the many phones <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_HTC\_phones">HTC manufactures</a>.  Steve Jobs was quoted as saying, 'We can sit by and <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/apple-sues-htc-for-patent-infringement-85950187.html">watch competitors steal our patented inventions</a>, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.'  Apple has similar <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/01/17/069258/Apple-Seeks-To-Ban-Nokia-Imports-To-US">patent litigation with Nokia</a> and may be trying to scare the rest of the industry into licensing patents similar to the Microsoft-Novell and <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/23/1231255/Microsoft-Amazon-Ink-Kindle-and-Linux-Patent-Deal">Microsoft-Amazon</a> deals regarding patents covering Linux functionality."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Taiwanese HTC is being sued by Apple for 20 patents regarding the many phones HTC manufactures .
Steve Jobs was quoted as saying , 'We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions , or we can do something about it .
We 've decided to do something about it .
We think competition is healthy , but competitors should create their own original technology , not steal ours .
' Apple has similar patent litigation with Nokia and may be trying to scare the rest of the industry into licensing patents similar to the Microsoft-Novell and Microsoft-Amazon deals regarding patents covering Linux functionality .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Taiwanese HTC is being sued by Apple for 20 patents regarding the many phones HTC manufactures.
Steve Jobs was quoted as saying, 'We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it.
We've decided to do something about it.
We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.
'  Apple has similar patent litigation with Nokia and may be trying to scare the rest of the industry into licensing patents similar to the Microsoft-Novell and Microsoft-Amazon deals regarding patents covering Linux functionality.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332754</id>
	<title>Re:Multi-touch</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1267557000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Multi-touch was invented by some folks at MIT, Apple was simply the first to use it in a large-scale product.</p><p>Being the first to use someone else's invention doesn't somehow make it your invention.  People seem to think that though.  I'll bet there are some dumbasses who even think Apple was involved in creating the GSM band too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Multi-touch was invented by some folks at MIT , Apple was simply the first to use it in a large-scale product.Being the first to use someone else 's invention does n't somehow make it your invention .
People seem to think that though .
I 'll bet there are some dumbasses who even think Apple was involved in creating the GSM band too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Multi-touch was invented by some folks at MIT, Apple was simply the first to use it in a large-scale product.Being the first to use someone else's invention doesn't somehow make it your invention.
People seem to think that though.
I'll bet there are some dumbasses who even think Apple was involved in creating the GSM band too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334994</id>
	<title>Update - patents named</title>
	<author>plankrwf</author>
	<datestamp>1267522260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an update:</p><p><a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent-lawsuit-against-htc-is-all-about-android/" title="techcrunch.com" rel="nofollow">http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent-lawsuit-against-htc-is-all-about-android/</a> [techcrunch.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an update : http : //techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent-lawsuit-against-htc-is-all-about-android/ [ techcrunch.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an update:http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent-lawsuit-against-htc-is-all-about-android/ [techcrunch.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636</id>
	<title>Multi-touch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267553220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was at a ski resort the other week, and I heard two people talking about iPhone vs. other smartphones. One person had an iPhone. The iPhone owner said something to the effect of "Does Android have pinch to zoom? If so, I will go check it out". The UI of the iPhone is Apple's invention and gives it a competitive advantage. Why is it wrong for them to defend that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was at a ski resort the other week , and I heard two people talking about iPhone vs. other smartphones .
One person had an iPhone .
The iPhone owner said something to the effect of " Does Android have pinch to zoom ?
If so , I will go check it out " .
The UI of the iPhone is Apple 's invention and gives it a competitive advantage .
Why is it wrong for them to defend that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was at a ski resort the other week, and I heard two people talking about iPhone vs. other smartphones.
One person had an iPhone.
The iPhone owner said something to the effect of "Does Android have pinch to zoom?
If so, I will go check it out".
The UI of the iPhone is Apple's invention and gives it a competitive advantage.
Why is it wrong for them to defend that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335880</id>
	<title>I'm confused.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267525320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're telling me that Microsoft was engaged in serious legal action?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're telling me that Microsoft was engaged in serious legal action ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're telling me that Microsoft was engaged in serious legal action?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333298</id>
	<title>Software Patents</title>
	<author>TheSimkin</author>
	<datestamp>1267559160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Software patents shouldn't be patentable in the first place anyhow.

It's just math.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software patents should n't be patentable in the first place anyhow .
It 's just math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software patents shouldn't be patentable in the first place anyhow.
It's just math.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333912</id>
	<title>Re:I actually don't see a problem here...</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1267561380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Without diving into the specifics, I don't see a problem here. The iPhone was <strong>hugely</strong> innovative, and there was a lot there that was genuinely new</p></div><p>Being innovative does not rise the to level of being patentable.  To be patentable, the "innovation" must be <em>inventive</em>.  It must be novel, useful, and non-obvious to one skilled in the art.  (I use "must" loosely, it doesn't seem the USPTO follows the criteria very well in many cases) <br>
 IANAL, YMMV, RTFP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without diving into the specifics , I do n't see a problem here .
The iPhone was hugely innovative , and there was a lot there that was genuinely newBeing innovative does not rise the to level of being patentable .
To be patentable , the " innovation " must be inventive .
It must be novel , useful , and non-obvious to one skilled in the art .
( I use " must " loosely , it does n't seem the USPTO follows the criteria very well in many cases ) IANAL , YMMV , RTFP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without diving into the specifics, I don't see a problem here.
The iPhone was hugely innovative, and there was a lot there that was genuinely newBeing innovative does not rise the to level of being patentable.
To be patentable, the "innovation" must be inventive.
It must be novel, useful, and non-obvious to one skilled in the art.
(I use "must" loosely, it doesn't seem the USPTO follows the criteria very well in many cases) 
 IANAL, YMMV, RTFP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331766</id>
	<title>Yeah, pick on HTC...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267553760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see you pick on RIM or Palm, Apple.</p><p>Go ahead.  Then watch your ass being handed to you afterwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see you pick on RIM or Palm , Apple.Go ahead .
Then watch your ass being handed to you afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see you pick on RIM or Palm, Apple.Go ahead.
Then watch your ass being handed to you afterwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332252</id>
	<title>Re:More Details &amp; HTC Response</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1267555500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"some" are questionable.  Others (most) appear rock solid.  It;s simply common practice in ANY patent squabble that when you take a shot, you pile in the gunpowder.  No, most of these patents will get smacked down, but the remainder are insurmountable and that's the point.</p><p>Apple rarely fires these shots, typically they're defending from themselves trolls or companies that can't compete more traditionally.  However, occasionally you do have to trot out the lawyers, if not more just to remind the remainder of the competition that just because a few companies have done something already, without challenge, doesn't mean you can too.</p><p>At least the bulk of these patents are not some stupid GUI functions, and are related to hardware and systems developed by Apple honestly.</p><p>I'm not a fan of patent suits, and I call for patent reform, but HTC has crossed a few lines recently, and yea, I agree with many others, this is equally a shot directly at Google that can't otherwise easily be made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" some " are questionable .
Others ( most ) appear rock solid .
It ; s simply common practice in ANY patent squabble that when you take a shot , you pile in the gunpowder .
No , most of these patents will get smacked down , but the remainder are insurmountable and that 's the point.Apple rarely fires these shots , typically they 're defending from themselves trolls or companies that ca n't compete more traditionally .
However , occasionally you do have to trot out the lawyers , if not more just to remind the remainder of the competition that just because a few companies have done something already , without challenge , does n't mean you can too.At least the bulk of these patents are not some stupid GUI functions , and are related to hardware and systems developed by Apple honestly.I 'm not a fan of patent suits , and I call for patent reform , but HTC has crossed a few lines recently , and yea , I agree with many others , this is equally a shot directly at Google that ca n't otherwise easily be made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"some" are questionable.
Others (most) appear rock solid.
It;s simply common practice in ANY patent squabble that when you take a shot, you pile in the gunpowder.
No, most of these patents will get smacked down, but the remainder are insurmountable and that's the point.Apple rarely fires these shots, typically they're defending from themselves trolls or companies that can't compete more traditionally.
However, occasionally you do have to trot out the lawyers, if not more just to remind the remainder of the competition that just because a few companies have done something already, without challenge, doesn't mean you can too.At least the bulk of these patents are not some stupid GUI functions, and are related to hardware and systems developed by Apple honestly.I'm not a fan of patent suits, and I call for patent reform, but HTC has crossed a few lines recently, and yea, I agree with many others, this is equally a shot directly at Google that can't otherwise easily be made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31341084</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, pick on HTC...</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1267556880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt they'll bother with Palm because it would hardly seem worth the trouble given how the company is doing. Android is the iPhone's bigger competitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt they 'll bother with Palm because it would hardly seem worth the trouble given how the company is doing .
Android is the iPhone 's bigger competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt they'll bother with Palm because it would hardly seem worth the trouble given how the company is doing.
Android is the iPhone's bigger competitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332718</id>
	<title>"We think competition is healthy"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does he actually want us to believe he means that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does he actually want us to believe he means that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does he actually want us to believe he means that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334886</id>
	<title>Compare and Contrast</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1267521900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The Tea Parties and the sudden effusion of pathological Apple haters has erupted at about the same time." Discuss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Tea Parties and the sudden effusion of pathological Apple haters has erupted at about the same time .
" Discuss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Tea Parties and the sudden effusion of pathological Apple haters has erupted at about the same time.
" Discuss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335950</id>
	<title>Re:Steve Jobs is a boner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267525680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a business tool the iPhone is a joke. I recently switched from Nokia E71 to iPhone 3Gs and I completely agree with all the "How do" issues presented by the parent. In addition iPhone battery life is total garbage with only around 24 hours on normal use?! Sure it's pretty as hell and the UI is fun but I am very disappointed with its general usability and especially business value (have to buy all E71 basic utils and no multitasking???). Forcing business users to install iTunes to use a \_phone\_ is a humiliation - bend over, here comes the apple!</p><p>The Nokia E71 UI may be a bit clunky (as also used on cheaper models) but it's a 110\% rock solid phone that comes with \_excellent\_battery\_life\_, multitasking, good full qwerty keyboard and all the business functionality you can wish for (mass media, office document reader, biz card scanner, task util, flash memory etc etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a business tool the iPhone is a joke .
I recently switched from Nokia E71 to iPhone 3Gs and I completely agree with all the " How do " issues presented by the parent .
In addition iPhone battery life is total garbage with only around 24 hours on normal use ? !
Sure it 's pretty as hell and the UI is fun but I am very disappointed with its general usability and especially business value ( have to buy all E71 basic utils and no multitasking ? ? ? ) .
Forcing business users to install iTunes to use a \ _phone \ _ is a humiliation - bend over , here comes the apple ! The Nokia E71 UI may be a bit clunky ( as also used on cheaper models ) but it 's a 110 \ % rock solid phone that comes with \ _excellent \ _battery \ _life \ _ , multitasking , good full qwerty keyboard and all the business functionality you can wish for ( mass media , office document reader , biz card scanner , task util , flash memory etc etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a business tool the iPhone is a joke.
I recently switched from Nokia E71 to iPhone 3Gs and I completely agree with all the "How do" issues presented by the parent.
In addition iPhone battery life is total garbage with only around 24 hours on normal use?!
Sure it's pretty as hell and the UI is fun but I am very disappointed with its general usability and especially business value (have to buy all E71 basic utils and no multitasking???).
Forcing business users to install iTunes to use a \_phone\_ is a humiliation - bend over, here comes the apple!The Nokia E71 UI may be a bit clunky (as also used on cheaper models) but it's a 110\% rock solid phone that comes with \_excellent\_battery\_life\_, multitasking, good full qwerty keyboard and all the business functionality you can wish for (mass media, office document reader, biz card scanner, task util, flash memory etc etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331956</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a joke?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267554480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a non-oo graphic system just go look at open-gl, or the libraries used for gnome. All the old 2d sprite engines were non-oo, and written in C. calling get\_pallett\_at, sprite\_start\_anim(*sprite) etc.</p><p>So it is possible... but now-a-days...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a non-oo graphic system just go look at open-gl , or the libraries used for gnome .
All the old 2d sprite engines were non-oo , and written in C. calling get \ _pallett \ _at , sprite \ _start \ _anim ( * sprite ) etc.So it is possible... but now-a-days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a non-oo graphic system just go look at open-gl, or the libraries used for gnome.
All the old 2d sprite engines were non-oo, and written in C. calling get\_pallett\_at, sprite\_start\_anim(*sprite) etc.So it is possible... but now-a-days...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332500</id>
	<title>Apple is admitting that they can't compete.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With this lawsuit, Apple just admitted that they can't compete on the quality of their product. They're trying to hamstring their opponent rather than actually making something better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With this lawsuit , Apple just admitted that they ca n't compete on the quality of their product .
They 're trying to hamstring their opponent rather than actually making something better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With this lawsuit, Apple just admitted that they can't compete on the quality of their product.
They're trying to hamstring their opponent rather than actually making something better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332806</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that...</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1267557240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't necessarily mean Apple was not the first to invent the thing.  They could have been simply waiting for their patent to go through.  I don't think they can sue until they actually have the patent.  "Patent pending" is just to keep people from wasting their time on something you've already invented.</p><p>However, I very seriously doubt many of Apple's patents against HTC are legit.  If this goes full scale I hope Apple loses a lot of these patents, because some of them are bull.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't necessarily mean Apple was not the first to invent the thing .
They could have been simply waiting for their patent to go through .
I do n't think they can sue until they actually have the patent .
" Patent pending " is just to keep people from wasting their time on something you 've already invented.However , I very seriously doubt many of Apple 's patents against HTC are legit .
If this goes full scale I hope Apple loses a lot of these patents , because some of them are bull .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't necessarily mean Apple was not the first to invent the thing.
They could have been simply waiting for their patent to go through.
I don't think they can sue until they actually have the patent.
"Patent pending" is just to keep people from wasting their time on something you've already invented.However, I very seriously doubt many of Apple's patents against HTC are legit.
If this goes full scale I hope Apple loses a lot of these patents, because some of them are bull.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331858</id>
	<title>Re:Multi-touch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267554060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Multi-Touch is the target that I am thinking of as well.  For the longest time they did not enable that feature on the Android phones officially (disabled in the kernel).  However, the screen can support it.  But if you work at it, you too can have multi-touch on your Android phone (for the apps that support it).  It's ok (on my myTouch that is, Nexus1 I am sure if better performance), but honestly my iPod Touch renders it better and quicker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Multi-Touch is the target that I am thinking of as well .
For the longest time they did not enable that feature on the Android phones officially ( disabled in the kernel ) .
However , the screen can support it .
But if you work at it , you too can have multi-touch on your Android phone ( for the apps that support it ) .
It 's ok ( on my myTouch that is , Nexus1 I am sure if better performance ) , but honestly my iPod Touch renders it better and quicker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Multi-Touch is the target that I am thinking of as well.
For the longest time they did not enable that feature on the Android phones officially (disabled in the kernel).
However, the screen can support it.
But if you work at it, you too can have multi-touch on your Android phone (for the apps that support it).
It's ok (on my myTouch that is, Nexus1 I am sure if better performance), but honestly my iPod Touch renders it better and quicker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332766</id>
	<title>Prior Art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267557060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is Tom Cruise demonstrating pinch and zoom in 2002.  <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3327/3483214122\_bfb6fcab24.jpg" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> [flickr.com] <br> <br>Software patents are going to be the death of Western success.  Okay... maybe not the death but we are so going to catch a nasty cold from them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is Tom Cruise demonstrating pinch and zoom in 2002 .
HERE [ flickr.com ] Software patents are going to be the death of Western success .
Okay... maybe not the death but we are so going to catch a nasty cold from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is Tom Cruise demonstrating pinch and zoom in 2002.
HERE [flickr.com]  Software patents are going to be the death of Western success.
Okay... maybe not the death but we are so going to catch a nasty cold from them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335752</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is the new Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267524780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What today?  They've been declining since the 80's.  Its just like global warming, one cold winter (or spike in sales) and the whole trend was clearly wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What today ?
They 've been declining since the 80 's .
Its just like global warming , one cold winter ( or spike in sales ) and the whole trend was clearly wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What today?
They've been declining since the 80's.
Its just like global warming, one cold winter (or spike in sales) and the whole trend was clearly wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332110</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is the new Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267555020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Beginning"? Apple has been worse than Microsoft for quite some time. The only reason they haven't caused much damage is that they luckily do not have a massive monopoly. (Personally, I don't really see them getting a massive monopoly any time soon. Microsoft's business moves may have been dickish, but they were dickishly <i>effective</i>. Apple's are just retarded.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Beginning " ?
Apple has been worse than Microsoft for quite some time .
The only reason they have n't caused much damage is that they luckily do not have a massive monopoly .
( Personally , I do n't really see them getting a massive monopoly any time soon .
Microsoft 's business moves may have been dickish , but they were dickishly effective .
Apple 's are just retarded .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Beginning"?
Apple has been worse than Microsoft for quite some time.
The only reason they haven't caused much damage is that they luckily do not have a massive monopoly.
(Personally, I don't really see them getting a massive monopoly any time soon.
Microsoft's business moves may have been dickish, but they were dickishly effective.
Apple's are just retarded.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331610</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is the new Microsoft</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1267553100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You think so?<br> <br>

Apple are well known for being litigious pricks, and for having a hard-on for dubious patents that just won't quit; but that doesn't seem to have hurt them much.<br> <br>

It would appear that the lesson that they learned from the "look and feel" lawsuit of the mid-90's was that everything is more fun with a giant pile of patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think so ?
Apple are well known for being litigious pricks , and for having a hard-on for dubious patents that just wo n't quit ; but that does n't seem to have hurt them much .
It would appear that the lesson that they learned from the " look and feel " lawsuit of the mid-90 's was that everything is more fun with a giant pile of patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think so?
Apple are well known for being litigious pricks, and for having a hard-on for dubious patents that just won't quit; but that doesn't seem to have hurt them much.
It would appear that the lesson that they learned from the "look and feel" lawsuit of the mid-90's was that everything is more fun with a giant pile of patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331848</id>
	<title>Which link?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267554000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do I click on to read the story?  I have no damn clue.  I guess I will hover each and every one and see what it points to.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is f'n annoying when it comes to this, like one of those js link generator that adds 'news search' to ever noun in a web page.  Who posts this garbage?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I click on to read the story ?
I have no damn clue .
I guess I will hover each and every one and see what it points to .
/. is f'n annoying when it comes to this , like one of those js link generator that adds 'news search ' to ever noun in a web page .
Who posts this garbage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I click on to read the story?
I have no damn clue.
I guess I will hover each and every one and see what it points to.
/. is f'n annoying when it comes to this, like one of those js link generator that adds 'news search' to ever noun in a web page.
Who posts this garbage?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332234</id>
	<title>Re:I actually don't see a problem here...</title>
	<author>jackspenn</author>
	<datestamp>1267555440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By your logic, Apple should be paying Samsung <b>huge</b> amounts of cash for the <b>huge</b> innovations in the iPhone that mirror Samsung's earlier products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By your logic , Apple should be paying Samsung huge amounts of cash for the huge innovations in the iPhone that mirror Samsung 's earlier products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By your logic, Apple should be paying Samsung huge amounts of cash for the huge innovations in the iPhone that mirror Samsung's earlier products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334918</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile, out in the real world...</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1267522020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, I forgot something. I am also a self-satisfied prig from Exeter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I forgot something .
I am also a self-satisfied prig from Exeter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I forgot something.
I am also a self-satisfied prig from Exeter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331810</id>
	<title>Not similiar</title>
	<author>cstdenis</author>
	<datestamp>1267553940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"similar to the Microsoft-Novell and Microsoft-Amazon deals regarding patents covering Linux functionality."</p><p>MS: You might be infringing on one or more unspecified patents.<br>Apple: You are infringing on these specific patents listed in the suit.</p><p>Not really all that similar. One is an empty threat, the other is serious legal action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" similar to the Microsoft-Novell and Microsoft-Amazon deals regarding patents covering Linux functionality .
" MS : You might be infringing on one or more unspecified patents.Apple : You are infringing on these specific patents listed in the suit.Not really all that similar .
One is an empty threat , the other is serious legal action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"similar to the Microsoft-Novell and Microsoft-Amazon deals regarding patents covering Linux functionality.
"MS: You might be infringing on one or more unspecified patents.Apple: You are infringing on these specific patents listed in the suit.Not really all that similar.
One is an empty threat, the other is serious legal action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334678</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a joke?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267521120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The &lsquo;599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System"
</p><p>
Seriously?
</p><p>
If anyone else here is a software developer, you know how crazy this is.</p></div><p>I agree. It's absolutely crazy to base your judgement of a patent's validity on the title. I mean, as a software developer, if I write a hello world program, but name it "World of Warcraft", that doesn't mean I just wrote WoW in three lines of code.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If this patent simply gives Apple the rights to the abstract idea of object-oriented graphic systems, that is INSANE.</p></div><p>Yes. Good thing it doesn't. Good thing the title has no legal weight, just like calling your program WoW doesn't mean anything about what the program does.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is basically the equivalent of Apple suing the creator of C++. Almost every single graphic system is object-oriented. I don't know if it is even possible to not have an object-oriented graphics system.</p></div><p>INSANE is actually jumping to a conclusion about a 27 page document based on a four word title.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The    599 Patent , entitled " Object-Oriented Graphic System " Seriously ?
If anyone else here is a software developer , you know how crazy this is.I agree .
It 's absolutely crazy to base your judgement of a patent 's validity on the title .
I mean , as a software developer , if I write a hello world program , but name it " World of Warcraft " , that does n't mean I just wrote WoW in three lines of code.If this patent simply gives Apple the rights to the abstract idea of object-oriented graphic systems , that is INSANE.Yes .
Good thing it does n't .
Good thing the title has no legal weight , just like calling your program WoW does n't mean anything about what the program does.This is basically the equivalent of Apple suing the creator of C + + .
Almost every single graphic system is object-oriented .
I do n't know if it is even possible to not have an object-oriented graphics system.INSANE is actually jumping to a conclusion about a 27 page document based on a four word title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The ‘599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System"

Seriously?
If anyone else here is a software developer, you know how crazy this is.I agree.
It's absolutely crazy to base your judgement of a patent's validity on the title.
I mean, as a software developer, if I write a hello world program, but name it "World of Warcraft", that doesn't mean I just wrote WoW in three lines of code.If this patent simply gives Apple the rights to the abstract idea of object-oriented graphic systems, that is INSANE.Yes.
Good thing it doesn't.
Good thing the title has no legal weight, just like calling your program WoW doesn't mean anything about what the program does.This is basically the equivalent of Apple suing the creator of C++.
Almost every single graphic system is object-oriented.
I don't know if it is even possible to not have an object-oriented graphics system.INSANE is actually jumping to a conclusion about a 27 page document based on a four word title.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31340186</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a joke?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267548660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell, <b>OS/2</b> was object-oriented AND graphical ~20 years ago. Half of OS/2's problem was the fact that they were <b>so</b> object-oriented, 99\% of the programmers in 1991 looked at their API and didn't have the slightest clue what to even <b>do</b> with it, because it was so completely alien to everything anyone knew back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , OS/2 was object-oriented AND graphical ~ 20 years ago .
Half of OS/2 's problem was the fact that they were so object-oriented , 99 \ % of the programmers in 1991 looked at their API and did n't have the slightest clue what to even do with it , because it was so completely alien to everything anyone knew back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, OS/2 was object-oriented AND graphical ~20 years ago.
Half of OS/2's problem was the fact that they were so object-oriented, 99\% of the programmers in 1991 looked at their API and didn't have the slightest clue what to even do with it, because it was so completely alien to everything anyone knew back then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331824</id>
	<title>Re:Multi-touch</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1267553940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why is it wrong for them to defend that?</p><p>They can't help but to violate patents of EVERY one of their competitors. That's why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why is it wrong for them to defend that ? They ca n't help but to violate patents of EVERY one of their competitors .
That 's why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why is it wrong for them to defend that?They can't help but to violate patents of EVERY one of their competitors.
That's why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334062</id>
	<title>The OO Patents are exceptionally Funny</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267561860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Filed between 1995 and 2005, thinkgs like oo graphics system oo event notification system etc...<br>Half of the stuff has been documented in the Gang of Four book ca 1992 and has prior art from Xerox Smalltalk etc... way into the 70s!</p><p>Sheesh I get more and more the feeling that Steve Jobs has lost his mind since he almost died.<br>If they sued they should pull off patents with a little bit more substance than toilet paper!<br>I am pretty sure since HTC is longer in the mobile phone game than Apple ever was they will countersue with something more substantial. Seems to me more like a suing to grab some patents off HTC than anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filed between 1995 and 2005 , thinkgs like oo graphics system oo event notification system etc...Half of the stuff has been documented in the Gang of Four book ca 1992 and has prior art from Xerox Smalltalk etc... way into the 70s ! Sheesh I get more and more the feeling that Steve Jobs has lost his mind since he almost died.If they sued they should pull off patents with a little bit more substance than toilet paper ! I am pretty sure since HTC is longer in the mobile phone game than Apple ever was they will countersue with something more substantial .
Seems to me more like a suing to grab some patents off HTC than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filed between 1995 and 2005, thinkgs like oo graphics system oo event notification system etc...Half of the stuff has been documented in the Gang of Four book ca 1992 and has prior art from Xerox Smalltalk etc... way into the 70s!Sheesh I get more and more the feeling that Steve Jobs has lost his mind since he almost died.If they sued they should pull off patents with a little bit more substance than toilet paper!I am pretty sure since HTC is longer in the mobile phone game than Apple ever was they will countersue with something more substantial.
Seems to me more like a suing to grab some patents off HTC than anything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334372</id>
	<title>Quick Summary of some of the Patents</title>
	<author>CrazyChinaman</author>
	<datestamp>1267563000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Engadget has a post about this.  They list out some of the major/more ridiculous ones and give a quick summary.  Well, as quick a summary as a non-patent lawer can give.  Good to read if your'e curious about what Apple wants to sue over and don't want to read through patent abstracts.
<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/" title="engadget.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/</a> [engadget.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Engadget has a post about this .
They list out some of the major/more ridiculous ones and give a quick summary .
Well , as quick a summary as a non-patent lawer can give .
Good to read if your'e curious about what Apple wants to sue over and do n't want to read through patent abstracts .
http : //www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/ [ engadget.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engadget has a post about this.
They list out some of the major/more ridiculous ones and give a quick summary.
Well, as quick a summary as a non-patent lawer can give.
Good to read if your'e curious about what Apple wants to sue over and don't want to read through patent abstracts.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/ [engadget.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337100</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this shit patentable?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267530060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you fully agree that the Iphones should be scrapped, and Apple fined billions, because of all those other things that were in their phones that were done by another company first.</p><p>PS - you weren't the first person to write on Slashdot without an account. So it's clearly must be something non-obvious, and patentable (otherwise, why didn't you do it first?) So you're no longer allowed to post without an account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you fully agree that the Iphones should be scrapped , and Apple fined billions , because of all those other things that were in their phones that were done by another company first.PS - you were n't the first person to write on Slashdot without an account .
So it 's clearly must be something non-obvious , and patentable ( otherwise , why did n't you do it first ?
) So you 're no longer allowed to post without an account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you fully agree that the Iphones should be scrapped, and Apple fined billions, because of all those other things that were in their phones that were done by another company first.PS - you weren't the first person to write on Slashdot without an account.
So it's clearly must be something non-obvious, and patentable (otherwise, why didn't you do it first?
) So you're no longer allowed to post without an account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334930</id>
	<title>Re:User Interface patents</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1267522080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any patent is a form of a monopoly, granted for a limited time. Many user interfaces have been patented, including one of the most enduring, the QWERTY keyboard. It gives the inventor a chance to make money from their idea, but ultimately releases it for broad public re-use. I have no problem with UI patents; UI matters a great deal to the functioning and success of a device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any patent is a form of a monopoly , granted for a limited time .
Many user interfaces have been patented , including one of the most enduring , the QWERTY keyboard .
It gives the inventor a chance to make money from their idea , but ultimately releases it for broad public re-use .
I have no problem with UI patents ; UI matters a great deal to the functioning and success of a device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any patent is a form of a monopoly, granted for a limited time.
Many user interfaces have been patented, including one of the most enduring, the QWERTY keyboard.
It gives the inventor a chance to make money from their idea, but ultimately releases it for broad public re-use.
I have no problem with UI patents; UI matters a great deal to the functioning and success of a device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31346902</id>
	<title>Interesting reading</title>
	<author>Tug3</author>
	<datestamp>1267637760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's interesting to read the comments here in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.
</p><p>
Most are expecting the patents in question to be some technical gadgets being patented, and seem to be thinking UI is just BS. Hardware is where the beef is!
</p><p>
That is understandable, as most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers are geeks, and nerds do usually prefer the engineering side of the human aspect. And that is just fine. Without hardware there is no software, and without software there is no UI. But what most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers seem to be missing is what floats a product. Why iPhone is still selling well.
</p><p>
When iPhone came out, the only unique thing about it's hardware was the touch screen. And actually even that wasn't technically anything new, only the combining software made it something new. Everything else about the phone was just average. And still is. When the latest iPhone 3Gs came out, it didn't have anything we hadn't seen before. But it's not the hardware that sells the iPhone. It's not only the marketing either. While marketing will sell a product, it will not float it for three years. There is more to iPhone's success than marketing, and it certainly isn't the hardware.
</p><p>
The something is not the software (as features go) either. iPhone doesn't have anything that you couldn't get to any other smart phone either. Maybe there are more apps for it yes, but essentially they do not offer any killer app that you wouldn't be able to get (feature wise) for the competing products.
</p><p>
The only thing that set's iPhone apart from it's competitors is it's UI. The fact that there is no manual, and even a 1 year old knows how to use it. My now 18 months old son figured out how to unlock and open picture viewer and how to browse them, all by himself. Hell, he even sent email from the phone last summer, although it wasn't as he understood what he was doing then. =) Anyway, the UI is the single piece of iPhone that sets it apart, and the largest reason for it's continuing success. To repeat myself, yes marketing sold the phone, but it's the UI that keeps on selling it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting to read the comments here in / .
Most are expecting the patents in question to be some technical gadgets being patented , and seem to be thinking UI is just BS .
Hardware is where the beef is !
That is understandable , as most / .
readers are geeks , and nerds do usually prefer the engineering side of the human aspect .
And that is just fine .
Without hardware there is no software , and without software there is no UI .
But what most /.ers seem to be missing is what floats a product .
Why iPhone is still selling well .
When iPhone came out , the only unique thing about it 's hardware was the touch screen .
And actually even that was n't technically anything new , only the combining software made it something new .
Everything else about the phone was just average .
And still is .
When the latest iPhone 3Gs came out , it did n't have anything we had n't seen before .
But it 's not the hardware that sells the iPhone .
It 's not only the marketing either .
While marketing will sell a product , it will not float it for three years .
There is more to iPhone 's success than marketing , and it certainly is n't the hardware .
The something is not the software ( as features go ) either .
iPhone does n't have anything that you could n't get to any other smart phone either .
Maybe there are more apps for it yes , but essentially they do not offer any killer app that you would n't be able to get ( feature wise ) for the competing products .
The only thing that set 's iPhone apart from it 's competitors is it 's UI .
The fact that there is no manual , and even a 1 year old knows how to use it .
My now 18 months old son figured out how to unlock and open picture viewer and how to browse them , all by himself .
Hell , he even sent email from the phone last summer , although it was n't as he understood what he was doing then .
= ) Anyway , the UI is the single piece of iPhone that sets it apart , and the largest reason for it 's continuing success .
To repeat myself , yes marketing sold the phone , but it 's the UI that keeps on selling it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's interesting to read the comments here in /.
Most are expecting the patents in question to be some technical gadgets being patented, and seem to be thinking UI is just BS.
Hardware is where the beef is!
That is understandable, as most /.
readers are geeks, and nerds do usually prefer the engineering side of the human aspect.
And that is just fine.
Without hardware there is no software, and without software there is no UI.
But what most /.ers seem to be missing is what floats a product.
Why iPhone is still selling well.
When iPhone came out, the only unique thing about it's hardware was the touch screen.
And actually even that wasn't technically anything new, only the combining software made it something new.
Everything else about the phone was just average.
And still is.
When the latest iPhone 3Gs came out, it didn't have anything we hadn't seen before.
But it's not the hardware that sells the iPhone.
It's not only the marketing either.
While marketing will sell a product, it will not float it for three years.
There is more to iPhone's success than marketing, and it certainly isn't the hardware.
The something is not the software (as features go) either.
iPhone doesn't have anything that you couldn't get to any other smart phone either.
Maybe there are more apps for it yes, but essentially they do not offer any killer app that you wouldn't be able to get (feature wise) for the competing products.
The only thing that set's iPhone apart from it's competitors is it's UI.
The fact that there is no manual, and even a 1 year old knows how to use it.
My now 18 months old son figured out how to unlock and open picture viewer and how to browse them, all by himself.
Hell, he even sent email from the phone last summer, although it wasn't as he understood what he was doing then.
=) Anyway, the UI is the single piece of iPhone that sets it apart, and the largest reason for it's continuing success.
To repeat myself, yes marketing sold the phone, but it's the UI that keeps on selling it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331964</id>
	<title>Re:I actually don't see a problem here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267554540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you're done licking Steve Job's asshole, write an actual post. Stupid fanbitches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you 're done licking Steve Job 's asshole , write an actual post .
Stupid fanbitches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you're done licking Steve Job's asshole, write an actual post.
Stupid fanbitches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31488938</id>
	<title>Re:Looks like they had enough of SenseUI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268652900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>t, i.e. in other words, market control.</p></div><p>Uhh, isn't that the entire point of a patent?  To allow the inventor time to build, sell, and profit from their invention before everyone and their brother starts selling it?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Hence suing will slow HTC down so Apple can release UI features before HTC does and claim it's a Apple "innovation".</p></div><p>If you invent something first, in patent law it doesn't matter in the slightest that somebody else also came up with it later.  You invented it first, you have one year to patent it from the date of invention, and X-many years of monopoly rights to the idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>t , i.e .
in other words , market control.Uhh , is n't that the entire point of a patent ?
To allow the inventor time to build , sell , and profit from their invention before everyone and their brother starts selling it ?
Hence suing will slow HTC down so Apple can release UI features before HTC does and claim it 's a Apple " innovation " .If you invent something first , in patent law it does n't matter in the slightest that somebody else also came up with it later .
You invented it first , you have one year to patent it from the date of invention , and X-many years of monopoly rights to the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>t, i.e.
in other words, market control.Uhh, isn't that the entire point of a patent?
To allow the inventor time to build, sell, and profit from their invention before everyone and their brother starts selling it?
Hence suing will slow HTC down so Apple can release UI features before HTC does and claim it's a Apple "innovation".If you invent something first, in patent law it doesn't matter in the slightest that somebody else also came up with it later.
You invented it first, you have one year to patent it from the date of invention, and X-many years of monopoly rights to the idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334104</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a joke?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267561980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd welcome that. C++ is an abomination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd welcome that .
C + + is an abomination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd welcome that.
C++ is an abomination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331426</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Apple should pay their royalties first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267552440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple has been thieves since nearly the beginning and probably still are, shoe being on the other foot is uncomfortable for Mr hypocrite, er, I mean Jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has been thieves since nearly the beginning and probably still are , shoe being on the other foot is uncomfortable for Mr hypocrite , er , I mean Jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has been thieves since nearly the beginning and probably still are, shoe being on the other foot is uncomfortable for Mr hypocrite, er, I mean Jobs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31336804</id>
	<title>Re:Multi-touch</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So in other words, you want a world where the answer is "Android did do pinch to zoom, but then a judge banned it because of Apple, so now it's disabled"?</p><p>You'd like a world where there's no phone that has all you want, because every patented feature only exists on the phones of one market?</p><p>Oh, and this would also be a world where the Iphone doesn't exist in the first place, because it wouldn't be possible without infringing on Nokia's phone patents.</p><p>(Apple didn't invent multitouch, anyway, btw.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So in other words , you want a world where the answer is " Android did do pinch to zoom , but then a judge banned it because of Apple , so now it 's disabled " ? You 'd like a world where there 's no phone that has all you want , because every patented feature only exists on the phones of one market ? Oh , and this would also be a world where the Iphone does n't exist in the first place , because it would n't be possible without infringing on Nokia 's phone patents .
( Apple did n't invent multitouch , anyway , btw .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in other words, you want a world where the answer is "Android did do pinch to zoom, but then a judge banned it because of Apple, so now it's disabled"?You'd like a world where there's no phone that has all you want, because every patented feature only exists on the phones of one market?Oh, and this would also be a world where the Iphone doesn't exist in the first place, because it wouldn't be possible without infringing on Nokia's phone patents.
(Apple didn't invent multitouch, anyway, btw.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31356426</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe you should stop endorsing blackmail?</title>
	<author>notrandomly</author>
	<datestamp>1267705080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only problem is, unlike with every other company Nokia will not except ONLY money in the case of Apple - they also demand cross-licencing of patents (presumably similar to the ones in question).</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yes, cross-licensing. Just like they are doing with all other mobile manufacturers.</p><blockquote><div><p>Why do you think it's fair that Nokia can demand different terms from licensers of a technology</p></div></blockquote><p>
They aren't demanding anything different. They are demanding the same as from other manufacturers.</p><blockquote><div><p>Apple has a lawsuit going there, demanding they be able to pay Nokia as per normal terms.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, Apple has a lawsuit going on because they refused to follow the rules everyone else is following, and felt so special they didn't think it was necessary to honor the IP of other companies. But now they are suing HTC over their own IP. Blatantly hypocritical bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem is , unlike with every other company Nokia will not except ONLY money in the case of Apple - they also demand cross-licencing of patents ( presumably similar to the ones in question ) .
Yes , cross-licensing .
Just like they are doing with all other mobile manufacturers.Why do you think it 's fair that Nokia can demand different terms from licensers of a technology They are n't demanding anything different .
They are demanding the same as from other manufacturers.Apple has a lawsuit going there , demanding they be able to pay Nokia as per normal terms .
No , Apple has a lawsuit going on because they refused to follow the rules everyone else is following , and felt so special they did n't think it was necessary to honor the IP of other companies .
But now they are suing HTC over their own IP .
Blatantly hypocritical bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem is, unlike with every other company Nokia will not except ONLY money in the case of Apple - they also demand cross-licencing of patents (presumably similar to the ones in question).
Yes, cross-licensing.
Just like they are doing with all other mobile manufacturers.Why do you think it's fair that Nokia can demand different terms from licensers of a technology
They aren't demanding anything different.
They are demanding the same as from other manufacturers.Apple has a lawsuit going there, demanding they be able to pay Nokia as per normal terms.
No, Apple has a lawsuit going on because they refused to follow the rules everyone else is following, and felt so special they didn't think it was necessary to honor the IP of other companies.
But now they are suing HTC over their own IP.
Blatantly hypocritical bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333502</id>
	<title>Patents are against free market</title>
	<author>toastliscio</author>
	<datestamp>1267560000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For decades big companies used patents to manufacture their products in a regime of monopoly, plus they also patent what could be the possible alternatives to their products and hold those patents in a drawer, just to prevent somebody else from manufacturing something alternative to their products.
Of course, patents are affordable only by those big companies, because of patenting costs but most importatly because of R&amp;D costs.
Thus, patents destroy competition by preventing new companies from acquiring a considerable market share; patents perpetuate the predominance of big companies over the years.
All this happens at te expenses of us consumers, and when I say "expenses" I mean real money.
So it seems patents are against free market.

Maybe the patent law should be changed in a manner that it allows the holder to get a share of the profits others do with his invention, but DOESN'T allow the holder to stop others from producing his invention.
It could be a big boost to competition, which is good, expecially in these times of crisis.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>For decades big companies used patents to manufacture their products in a regime of monopoly , plus they also patent what could be the possible alternatives to their products and hold those patents in a drawer , just to prevent somebody else from manufacturing something alternative to their products .
Of course , patents are affordable only by those big companies , because of patenting costs but most importatly because of R&amp;D costs .
Thus , patents destroy competition by preventing new companies from acquiring a considerable market share ; patents perpetuate the predominance of big companies over the years .
All this happens at te expenses of us consumers , and when I say " expenses " I mean real money .
So it seems patents are against free market .
Maybe the patent law should be changed in a manner that it allows the holder to get a share of the profits others do with his invention , but DOES N'T allow the holder to stop others from producing his invention .
It could be a big boost to competition , which is good , expecially in these times of crisis .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For decades big companies used patents to manufacture their products in a regime of monopoly, plus they also patent what could be the possible alternatives to their products and hold those patents in a drawer, just to prevent somebody else from manufacturing something alternative to their products.
Of course, patents are affordable only by those big companies, because of patenting costs but most importatly because of R&amp;D costs.
Thus, patents destroy competition by preventing new companies from acquiring a considerable market share; patents perpetuate the predominance of big companies over the years.
All this happens at te expenses of us consumers, and when I say "expenses" I mean real money.
So it seems patents are against free market.
Maybe the patent law should be changed in a manner that it allows the holder to get a share of the profits others do with his invention, but DOESN'T allow the holder to stop others from producing his invention.
It could be a big boost to competition, which is good, expecially in these times of crisis.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333252</id>
	<title>Apple Maggots in style</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267558980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>849 "Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image"  (Feb 2 2010)</p><p>WTF how is any technology company expected to innovate, exist or otherwise do anything of value when companies are allowed to file such rank nonsense and hold it against their competitors forcing them to expend millions to fight it?  Patents were meant to promote innovation not totally destroy entire industries.  There have been several FREE unscreen unlock utilities available for WM for at least 5 years now... how does anyone get awarded patents on such nonsense?</p><p>381 "list scrolling, document translation, scaling rotation on touch screen display" Dec 23 2008.</p><p>How do people get away with aggregating existing tired old technology onto a new (in this case old) platform and then get awarded a patent for it.  Its like the old RIM voice mail over VOIP nonsense.  The patents on voice mail expired a long time ago but that didn't stop someone from successfully re-patenting the same crap on different mediums.  Rediculous.</p><p>453 "Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction processing portion of a processor" June 3 2008... A patent on voltage scaling?  If so it wouldn't surprise me that the patent office would award it regardless of many years of prior art.</p><p>599, 354<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... OO UIs, OO event systems... 2002,1995.  Prior art: IBM AIX, OS/2 workplace shell.. How can anyone hit up a mobile phone interface for an OO event system when the technology is everywhere?  All web browsers have OO event systems.</p><p>To even come close to doing its job the patent system needs to be overhauled and much of the existing patent awards need to be revoked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>849 " Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image " ( Feb 2 2010 ) WTF how is any technology company expected to innovate , exist or otherwise do anything of value when companies are allowed to file such rank nonsense and hold it against their competitors forcing them to expend millions to fight it ?
Patents were meant to promote innovation not totally destroy entire industries .
There have been several FREE unscreen unlock utilities available for WM for at least 5 years now... how does anyone get awarded patents on such nonsense ? 381 " list scrolling , document translation , scaling rotation on touch screen display " Dec 23 2008.How do people get away with aggregating existing tired old technology onto a new ( in this case old ) platform and then get awarded a patent for it .
Its like the old RIM voice mail over VOIP nonsense .
The patents on voice mail expired a long time ago but that did n't stop someone from successfully re-patenting the same crap on different mediums .
Rediculous.453 " Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction processing portion of a processor " June 3 2008... A patent on voltage scaling ?
If so it would n't surprise me that the patent office would award it regardless of many years of prior art.599 , 354 ... OO UIs , OO event systems... 2002,1995. Prior art : IBM AIX , OS/2 workplace shell.. How can anyone hit up a mobile phone interface for an OO event system when the technology is everywhere ?
All web browsers have OO event systems.To even come close to doing its job the patent system needs to be overhauled and much of the existing patent awards need to be revoked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>849 "Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image"  (Feb 2 2010)WTF how is any technology company expected to innovate, exist or otherwise do anything of value when companies are allowed to file such rank nonsense and hold it against their competitors forcing them to expend millions to fight it?
Patents were meant to promote innovation not totally destroy entire industries.
There have been several FREE unscreen unlock utilities available for WM for at least 5 years now... how does anyone get awarded patents on such nonsense?381 "list scrolling, document translation, scaling rotation on touch screen display" Dec 23 2008.How do people get away with aggregating existing tired old technology onto a new (in this case old) platform and then get awarded a patent for it.
Its like the old RIM voice mail over VOIP nonsense.
The patents on voice mail expired a long time ago but that didn't stop someone from successfully re-patenting the same crap on different mediums.
Rediculous.453 "Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction processing portion of a processor" June 3 2008... A patent on voltage scaling?
If so it wouldn't surprise me that the patent office would award it regardless of many years of prior art.599, 354 ... OO UIs, OO event systems... 2002,1995.  Prior art: IBM AIX, OS/2 workplace shell.. How can anyone hit up a mobile phone interface for an OO event system when the technology is everywhere?
All web browsers have OO event systems.To even come close to doing its job the patent system needs to be overhauled and much of the existing patent awards need to be revoked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334198</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe you should stop endorsing blackmail?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1267562280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You only have Apple word for waving that "RAND" like it's some magical thing allowing companies to take what they want without bringing much to the table. Fact is, patents which Apple offers in exchange are trivial in comparison to those held by cellphone industry players - which took many years and billions of dollars to develop.</p><p>In light of that, it is Apple who want discriminatory treatment to everyone else. But Apple is special, they can have better set of rules...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You only have Apple word for waving that " RAND " like it 's some magical thing allowing companies to take what they want without bringing much to the table .
Fact is , patents which Apple offers in exchange are trivial in comparison to those held by cellphone industry players - which took many years and billions of dollars to develop.In light of that , it is Apple who want discriminatory treatment to everyone else .
But Apple is special , they can have better set of rules.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You only have Apple word for waving that "RAND" like it's some magical thing allowing companies to take what they want without bringing much to the table.
Fact is, patents which Apple offers in exchange are trivial in comparison to those held by cellphone industry players - which took many years and billions of dollars to develop.In light of that, it is Apple who want discriminatory treatment to everyone else.
But Apple is special, they can have better set of rules...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31347350</id>
	<title>Actually that is incorrect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267639380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft almost certainly spelled out the list of patents that they claim Linux violates to the companies they threatened.  Their evil brilliance is making signing an NDA part of the settlement, so the Linux community cannot take that list and invalidate or work around each patent one by one, as we will do with Apple's bullshit list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft almost certainly spelled out the list of patents that they claim Linux violates to the companies they threatened .
Their evil brilliance is making signing an NDA part of the settlement , so the Linux community can not take that list and invalidate or work around each patent one by one , as we will do with Apple 's bullshit list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft almost certainly spelled out the list of patents that they claim Linux violates to the companies they threatened.
Their evil brilliance is making signing an NDA part of the settlement, so the Linux community cannot take that list and invalidate or work around each patent one by one, as we will do with Apple's bullshit list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333456</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that...</title>
	<author>Orange Crush</author>
	<datestamp>1267559820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>^Well, to be fair, they're learning from a lot of successful examples.  Ask Microsoft about fooling with companies that have decades more experience on the playing field.  Besides, Apple does have a lot of experience on this playing field.  Phones are computers now, and it's the next big consumer battleground.  It's the late 80s and early 90s all over again, only I don't think there's a big dumb IBM this time around waiting for someone clever to come along and eat their lunch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>^ Well , to be fair , they 're learning from a lot of successful examples .
Ask Microsoft about fooling with companies that have decades more experience on the playing field .
Besides , Apple does have a lot of experience on this playing field .
Phones are computers now , and it 's the next big consumer battleground .
It 's the late 80s and early 90s all over again , only I do n't think there 's a big dumb IBM this time around waiting for someone clever to come along and eat their lunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>^Well, to be fair, they're learning from a lot of successful examples.
Ask Microsoft about fooling with companies that have decades more experience on the playing field.
Besides, Apple does have a lot of experience on this playing field.
Phones are computers now, and it's the next big consumer battleground.
It's the late 80s and early 90s all over again, only I don't think there's a big dumb IBM this time around waiting for someone clever to come along and eat their lunch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534</id>
	<title>Is this a joke?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267552860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The &lsquo;599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System"
<p>
Seriously?
</p><p>
If anyone else here is a software developer, you know how crazy this is.
</p><p>
If this patent simply gives Apple the rights to the abstract idea of object-oriented graphic systems, that is INSANE. This is basically the equivalent of Apple suing the creator of C++. Almost every single graphic system is object-oriented. I don't know if it is even possible to not have an object-oriented graphics system.
</p><p>
"Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods"
</p><p>
Apple should sue the creators of Java as well for implementing action listeners.
</p><p>
[sarcasm]
Seriously, I am scared to use object oriented programming because I might get sued by Apple. Time to uninstall g++.
[end sarcasm]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The    599 Patent , entitled " Object-Oriented Graphic System " Seriously ?
If anyone else here is a software developer , you know how crazy this is .
If this patent simply gives Apple the rights to the abstract idea of object-oriented graphic systems , that is INSANE .
This is basically the equivalent of Apple suing the creator of C + + .
Almost every single graphic system is object-oriented .
I do n't know if it is even possible to not have an object-oriented graphics system .
" Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods " Apple should sue the creators of Java as well for implementing action listeners .
[ sarcasm ] Seriously , I am scared to use object oriented programming because I might get sued by Apple .
Time to uninstall g + + .
[ end sarcasm ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The ‘599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System"

Seriously?
If anyone else here is a software developer, you know how crazy this is.
If this patent simply gives Apple the rights to the abstract idea of object-oriented graphic systems, that is INSANE.
This is basically the equivalent of Apple suing the creator of C++.
Almost every single graphic system is object-oriented.
I don't know if it is even possible to not have an object-oriented graphics system.
"Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods"

Apple should sue the creators of Java as well for implementing action listeners.
[sarcasm]
Seriously, I am scared to use object oriented programming because I might get sued by Apple.
Time to uninstall g++.
[end sarcasm]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331398</id>
	<title>You know what would be funny?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267552320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be funny if Steve Jobs died of cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be funny if Steve Jobs died of cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be funny if Steve Jobs died of cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334188</id>
	<title>Re:Looks like they had enough of SenseUI</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267562220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is that about 90\% of the patents have a load of prior art, most of the plain software stuff Apple patented can be traced back at least to the Gang of Four patterns book, and from there back into Smalltalk and the mid 70s, it should be rather easy for HTC if they do proper research to basically kill most of not all of those patents mentioned.<br>This reminds me on the 80s Apple when they went on a stride to sue everyone who had moving Windows and generally Windowing systems, while they basically just copied what Xerox did.<br>(Pinch an Zoom btw. is also a Xerox invention)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is that about 90 \ % of the patents have a load of prior art , most of the plain software stuff Apple patented can be traced back at least to the Gang of Four patterns book , and from there back into Smalltalk and the mid 70s , it should be rather easy for HTC if they do proper research to basically kill most of not all of those patents mentioned.This reminds me on the 80s Apple when they went on a stride to sue everyone who had moving Windows and generally Windowing systems , while they basically just copied what Xerox did .
( Pinch an Zoom btw .
is also a Xerox invention )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is that about 90\% of the patents have a load of prior art, most of the plain software stuff Apple patented can be traced back at least to the Gang of Four patterns book, and from there back into Smalltalk and the mid 70s, it should be rather easy for HTC if they do proper research to basically kill most of not all of those patents mentioned.This reminds me on the 80s Apple when they went on a stride to sue everyone who had moving Windows and generally Windowing systems, while they basically just copied what Xerox did.
(Pinch an Zoom btw.
is also a Xerox invention)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332840</id>
	<title>Meanwhile, out in the real world...</title>
	<author>GuyFawkes</author>
	<datestamp>1267557300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and by that I mean the high street, not certain high streets in US towns and cities, not certain self selecting demographics (/. readership), but actual high streets in other countries in the world...</p><p>I live in a city with 2,000+ years of history (Exeter, UK)</p><p>I live in a city with 50 mbit cable for approx 50 bucks a month.</p><p>I live in a city which is a big university town, and which also is home to the UK Met Office (I mention that because it is basically a tech institution)</p><p>You know how many iphones I have seen in the flesh?</p><p>NONE</p><p>NOT ONE</p><p>ZIP</p><p>ZERO</p><p>Nope, not a single one.</p><p>Flipside, I am one of the few people I know who does not own a fully featured smartphone less than 12 months old, I own a very old and very basic samsung phone.</p><p>iphone is available here, and competitive price wise, plus we have the ability here to just stick a sim card in and use any carrier you like, and the iphone was marketed harder than any other smartphone, so there really aren't ANY barriers to entry here for users.</p><p>except one.</p><p>they choose / prefer to buy a different make / model phone.</p><p>Apple (iphone) suing HTC over phone tech patents is like Apple (ipod) suing Sony over walkman tech patents.</p><p>The analogy is as the ipod is insignificant in the field of hi-fi hardware, the iphone is insignificant in the field of comms hardware.</p><p>Apple is a busted flush, suing instead of innovating.</p><p>No news here unless you are an Apple shareholder, if you are then this is news, a heads up to sell Apple stock asap and get into something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and by that I mean the high street , not certain high streets in US towns and cities , not certain self selecting demographics ( / .
readership ) , but actual high streets in other countries in the world...I live in a city with 2,000 + years of history ( Exeter , UK ) I live in a city with 50 mbit cable for approx 50 bucks a month.I live in a city which is a big university town , and which also is home to the UK Met Office ( I mention that because it is basically a tech institution ) You know how many iphones I have seen in the flesh ? NONENOT ONEZIPZERONope , not a single one.Flipside , I am one of the few people I know who does not own a fully featured smartphone less than 12 months old , I own a very old and very basic samsung phone.iphone is available here , and competitive price wise , plus we have the ability here to just stick a sim card in and use any carrier you like , and the iphone was marketed harder than any other smartphone , so there really are n't ANY barriers to entry here for users.except one.they choose / prefer to buy a different make / model phone.Apple ( iphone ) suing HTC over phone tech patents is like Apple ( ipod ) suing Sony over walkman tech patents.The analogy is as the ipod is insignificant in the field of hi-fi hardware , the iphone is insignificant in the field of comms hardware.Apple is a busted flush , suing instead of innovating.No news here unless you are an Apple shareholder , if you are then this is news , a heads up to sell Apple stock asap and get into something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and by that I mean the high street, not certain high streets in US towns and cities, not certain self selecting demographics (/.
readership), but actual high streets in other countries in the world...I live in a city with 2,000+ years of history (Exeter, UK)I live in a city with 50 mbit cable for approx 50 bucks a month.I live in a city which is a big university town, and which also is home to the UK Met Office (I mention that because it is basically a tech institution)You know how many iphones I have seen in the flesh?NONENOT ONEZIPZERONope, not a single one.Flipside, I am one of the few people I know who does not own a fully featured smartphone less than 12 months old, I own a very old and very basic samsung phone.iphone is available here, and competitive price wise, plus we have the ability here to just stick a sim card in and use any carrier you like, and the iphone was marketed harder than any other smartphone, so there really aren't ANY barriers to entry here for users.except one.they choose / prefer to buy a different make / model phone.Apple (iphone) suing HTC over phone tech patents is like Apple (ipod) suing Sony over walkman tech patents.The analogy is as the ipod is insignificant in the field of hi-fi hardware, the iphone is insignificant in the field of comms hardware.Apple is a busted flush, suing instead of innovating.No news here unless you are an Apple shareholder, if you are then this is news, a heads up to sell Apple stock asap and get into something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337356</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is the new Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267530960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to think they already jumped the shark.... but this definitely helps!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to think they already jumped the shark.... but this definitely helps !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to think they already jumped the shark.... but this definitely helps!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337428</id>
	<title>Root cause:  Nexus One is a better phone</title>
	<author>Stuntmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267531260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The N1 has clearly touched a nerve at Apple.  And for good reason: Objectively it's just a better device:  Thinner, much better display, much faster, better camera, gps navigation, faster browser, not locked, not tied to AT&amp;T's network, and so on.  (Disclosure:  I own both.)  The Apple execs feel the threat, even though I'm sure Android isn't yet making much of a dent in their sales.  It's about wanting to be perceived as the innovator.  When you don't have the best product in the marketplace, you try to maintain the high ground by accusing the other guys of stealing from you.</p><p>Yawn.  Haven't we all seen this before?  These patent fights never work.  Remember when Apple sued Microsoft over their Mac GUI patents?  How did that turn out?</p><p>In principle patents offer protection and exclusivity, but in practice they do not for these large companies.  The USPTO has been granting excessively broad patents for decades, the result being that every major company with a portfolio of (excessively broad) patents can legitimately sue any other for patent infringement.  So all of the big companies decide to in effect declare a truce, and cross-license their patent portfolios so that someone can actually release a product.  The real loser is the innovative small company, which can't foot the $xxM legal cost of counter-suing, etc. when a big company decides to go after them, or hasn't yet accumulated a portfolio of (excessively broad) patents with which to credibly counter-sue.  I don't believe this is the outcome the authors of the Constitution had in mind for the US patent system.</p><p>Apple of course understands this reality.  This is just marketing and PR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The N1 has clearly touched a nerve at Apple .
And for good reason : Objectively it 's just a better device : Thinner , much better display , much faster , better camera , gps navigation , faster browser , not locked , not tied to AT&amp;T 's network , and so on .
( Disclosure : I own both .
) The Apple execs feel the threat , even though I 'm sure Android is n't yet making much of a dent in their sales .
It 's about wanting to be perceived as the innovator .
When you do n't have the best product in the marketplace , you try to maintain the high ground by accusing the other guys of stealing from you.Yawn .
Have n't we all seen this before ?
These patent fights never work .
Remember when Apple sued Microsoft over their Mac GUI patents ?
How did that turn out ? In principle patents offer protection and exclusivity , but in practice they do not for these large companies .
The USPTO has been granting excessively broad patents for decades , the result being that every major company with a portfolio of ( excessively broad ) patents can legitimately sue any other for patent infringement .
So all of the big companies decide to in effect declare a truce , and cross-license their patent portfolios so that someone can actually release a product .
The real loser is the innovative small company , which ca n't foot the $ xxM legal cost of counter-suing , etc .
when a big company decides to go after them , or has n't yet accumulated a portfolio of ( excessively broad ) patents with which to credibly counter-sue .
I do n't believe this is the outcome the authors of the Constitution had in mind for the US patent system.Apple of course understands this reality .
This is just marketing and PR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The N1 has clearly touched a nerve at Apple.
And for good reason: Objectively it's just a better device:  Thinner, much better display, much faster, better camera, gps navigation, faster browser, not locked, not tied to AT&amp;T's network, and so on.
(Disclosure:  I own both.
)  The Apple execs feel the threat, even though I'm sure Android isn't yet making much of a dent in their sales.
It's about wanting to be perceived as the innovator.
When you don't have the best product in the marketplace, you try to maintain the high ground by accusing the other guys of stealing from you.Yawn.
Haven't we all seen this before?
These patent fights never work.
Remember when Apple sued Microsoft over their Mac GUI patents?
How did that turn out?In principle patents offer protection and exclusivity, but in practice they do not for these large companies.
The USPTO has been granting excessively broad patents for decades, the result being that every major company with a portfolio of (excessively broad) patents can legitimately sue any other for patent infringement.
So all of the big companies decide to in effect declare a truce, and cross-license their patent portfolios so that someone can actually release a product.
The real loser is the innovative small company, which can't foot the $xxM legal cost of counter-suing, etc.
when a big company decides to go after them, or hasn't yet accumulated a portfolio of (excessively broad) patents with which to credibly counter-sue.
I don't believe this is the outcome the authors of the Constitution had in mind for the US patent system.Apple of course understands this reality.
This is just marketing and PR.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332994</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is the new Microsoft</title>
	<author>not-my-real-name</author>
	<datestamp>1267558020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People have been predicting the demise of Apple for 30+ years.  Eventually one of then will be right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have been predicting the demise of Apple for 30 + years .
Eventually one of then will be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have been predicting the demise of Apple for 30+ years.
Eventually one of then will be right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337496</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is the new Microsoft</title>
	<author>goose-incarnated</author>
	<datestamp>1267531620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You think so?



Apple are well known for being litigious pricks, and for having a hard-on for dubious patents that just won't quit; but that doesn't seem to have hurt them much.



It would appear that the lesson that they learned from the "look and feel" lawsuit of the mid-90's was that everything is more fun with a giant pile of patents.</p></div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and vaseline</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think so ?
Apple are well known for being litigious pricks , and for having a hard-on for dubious patents that just wo n't quit ; but that does n't seem to have hurt them much .
It would appear that the lesson that they learned from the " look and feel " lawsuit of the mid-90 's was that everything is more fun with a giant pile of patents .
... and vaseline</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think so?
Apple are well known for being litigious pricks, and for having a hard-on for dubious patents that just won't quit; but that doesn't seem to have hurt them much.
It would appear that the lesson that they learned from the "look and feel" lawsuit of the mid-90's was that everything is more fun with a giant pile of patents.
... and vaseline
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331646</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Apple should pay their royalties first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267553280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This isn't aimed at HTC; it's aimed at Google. Don't kid yourself. To whom, is Google paying license fees?</i></p><p>The lawsuit is currently directed at HTC, so you would be quite wrong in this case.  Though, I'm more than sure the plan is to stop Google's phone by attacking it from the ground up.  I can understand why they are doing it because IMO (I have a Nexus One and my wife as an iPhone) the Nexus One is far superior to Apple's iPhone.  Thats even with the few quarks that need to be worked out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't aimed at HTC ; it 's aimed at Google .
Do n't kid yourself .
To whom , is Google paying license fees ? The lawsuit is currently directed at HTC , so you would be quite wrong in this case .
Though , I 'm more than sure the plan is to stop Google 's phone by attacking it from the ground up .
I can understand why they are doing it because IMO ( I have a Nexus One and my wife as an iPhone ) the Nexus One is far superior to Apple 's iPhone .
Thats even with the few quarks that need to be worked out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't aimed at HTC; it's aimed at Google.
Don't kid yourself.
To whom, is Google paying license fees?The lawsuit is currently directed at HTC, so you would be quite wrong in this case.
Though, I'm more than sure the plan is to stop Google's phone by attacking it from the ground up.
I can understand why they are doing it because IMO (I have a Nexus One and my wife as an iPhone) the Nexus One is far superior to Apple's iPhone.
Thats even with the few quarks that need to be worked out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333136</id>
	<title>Taiwan recognition of U.S. patents</title>
	<author>atomic-penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1267558560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTC is based in Taiwan. If Taiwan has no patent treaty or agreement with the US, would HTC or the Taiwan government even recognize Apple's patents?  How does that work?  Is it really patent infringement, for a foreign company to do business in the same country where a patent is held?  Even when that patent has no legal standing in the home country of the alleged infringing company?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTC is based in Taiwan .
If Taiwan has no patent treaty or agreement with the US , would HTC or the Taiwan government even recognize Apple 's patents ?
How does that work ?
Is it really patent infringement , for a foreign company to do business in the same country where a patent is held ?
Even when that patent has no legal standing in the home country of the alleged infringing company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTC is based in Taiwan.
If Taiwan has no patent treaty or agreement with the US, would HTC or the Taiwan government even recognize Apple's patents?
How does that work?
Is it really patent infringement, for a foreign company to do business in the same country where a patent is held?
Even when that patent has no legal standing in the home country of the alleged infringing company?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331996</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a joke?</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1267554660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is basically the equivalent of Apple suing the creator of C++.</p></div></blockquote><p>Naah, it's more like Apple patenting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketchpad" title="wikipedia.org">Ivan Sutherland's 1963 object-oriented graphics program "Sketchpad"</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is basically the equivalent of Apple suing the creator of C + + .Naah , it 's more like Apple patenting Ivan Sutherland 's 1963 object-oriented graphics program " Sketchpad " [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is basically the equivalent of Apple suing the creator of C++.Naah, it's more like Apple patenting Ivan Sutherland's 1963 object-oriented graphics program "Sketchpad" [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331622</id>
	<title>Re:We think competition is healthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267553220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Competition is healthy for the market as a whole, but often not for individual companies, especially not ones with large market shares or which think they can grab a large market share. The greatest threat to the free market is the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition is healthy for the market as a whole , but often not for individual companies , especially not ones with large market shares or which think they can grab a large market share .
The greatest threat to the free market is the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition is healthy for the market as a whole, but often not for individual companies, especially not ones with large market shares or which think they can grab a large market share.
The greatest threat to the free market is the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31340124</id>
	<title>big words</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1267548240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."</i></p><p>Those are big words coming from a man who has built his businesses by putting other people's inventions into pretty boxes and charging an arm and a leg for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs , Apple 's CEO .
" We think competition is healthy , but competitors should create their own original technology , not steal ours .
" Those are big words coming from a man who has built his businesses by putting other people 's inventions into pretty boxes and charging an arm and a leg for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO.
"We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.
"Those are big words coming from a man who has built his businesses by putting other people's inventions into pretty boxes and charging an arm and a leg for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331594</id>
	<title>Re:Apple is the new Microsoft</title>
	<author>bmecoli</author>
	<datestamp>1267553040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man, I sure hope so.  I seriously hope I see the day when apple goes tits up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , I sure hope so .
I seriously hope I see the day when apple goes tits up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, I sure hope so.
I seriously hope I see the day when apple goes tits up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333234</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile, out in the real world...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267558920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moderation abuse.  Parent's post is not a troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moderation abuse .
Parent 's post is not a troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moderation abuse.
Parent's post is not a troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332508</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a joke?</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1267556160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, GTK+ and the other GLib libraries that GNOME is based on are object-oriented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , GTK + and the other GLib libraries that GNOME is based on are object-oriented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, GTK+ and the other GLib libraries that GNOME is based on are object-oriented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31342258</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this shit patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267610460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; There's a patent for screen rotation and scaling? That's nuts.</p><p>no. you can't judge a patent from its title.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There 's a patent for screen rotation and scaling ?
That 's nuts.no .
you ca n't judge a patent from its title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; There's a patent for screen rotation and scaling?
That's nuts.no.
you can't judge a patent from its title.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335592</id>
	<title>I planned buying a smartphone this year...</title>
	<author>ctrl-alt-canc</author>
	<datestamp>1267524240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but since Apple, HTC, Nokia and others are busy suing each other rather than improving their products, I think I'll wait further. Losing a patent suit can put out of the market a company, transforming your costly smartphone into a piece of junk with no more support at all. No thanks, I'll keep my old faithful 3-years old cellphone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but since Apple , HTC , Nokia and others are busy suing each other rather than improving their products , I think I 'll wait further .
Losing a patent suit can put out of the market a company , transforming your costly smartphone into a piece of junk with no more support at all .
No thanks , I 'll keep my old faithful 3-years old cellphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but since Apple, HTC, Nokia and others are busy suing each other rather than improving their products, I think I'll wait further.
Losing a patent suit can put out of the market a company, transforming your costly smartphone into a piece of junk with no more support at all.
No thanks, I'll keep my old faithful 3-years old cellphone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292</id>
	<title>Maybe Apple should pay their royalties first?</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1267551900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Apple should pay Nokia's patent royalties first before they go bullying others? (you know, the company that spend billions for mobile technology R&amp;D and who's technology it's almost all based on?)</p><p>Apple is just like a little kid trying to yell at the parents here. Too bad the mobile phone industry is a small one, everyone of the existing players cross-license between each one and ass behaving Apple is in serious trouble if the other companies stop licensing their technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Apple should pay Nokia 's patent royalties first before they go bullying others ?
( you know , the company that spend billions for mobile technology R&amp;D and who 's technology it 's almost all based on ?
) Apple is just like a little kid trying to yell at the parents here .
Too bad the mobile phone industry is a small one , everyone of the existing players cross-license between each one and ass behaving Apple is in serious trouble if the other companies stop licensing their technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Apple should pay Nokia's patent royalties first before they go bullying others?
(you know, the company that spend billions for mobile technology R&amp;D and who's technology it's almost all based on?
)Apple is just like a little kid trying to yell at the parents here.
Too bad the mobile phone industry is a small one, everyone of the existing players cross-license between each one and ass behaving Apple is in serious trouble if the other companies stop licensing their technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332520</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, pick on HTC...</title>
	<author>Cornelius the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1267556220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would have expected Apple to sue Palm first, given that they've already threatened them in the past, and they're smaller than HTC. Seems surprising that they'd go after HTC, a company that has been producing touchscreen smartphones and PDAs for about as long as Apple has been making ipods and has likely accumulated some patents along the way.<br>
<br>
And why now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have expected Apple to sue Palm first , given that they 've already threatened them in the past , and they 're smaller than HTC .
Seems surprising that they 'd go after HTC , a company that has been producing touchscreen smartphones and PDAs for about as long as Apple has been making ipods and has likely accumulated some patents along the way .
And why now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have expected Apple to sue Palm first, given that they've already threatened them in the past, and they're smaller than HTC.
Seems surprising that they'd go after HTC, a company that has been producing touchscreen smartphones and PDAs for about as long as Apple has been making ipods and has likely accumulated some patents along the way.
And why now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335426</id>
	<title>Re:Steve Jobs is a boner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267523640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This patent BS is a joke.  Did HTC hack, steal or corrupt Apple's trade secrets?  Not at all and nobody believes that.  It is one thing if a company steals your stuff, it is completely different if they come up with a similar idea/process independent of you.</p></div><p>Obviously, not.  Patents, by definition, can't be trade secrets, because (in theory) to get the patent you have to disclose enough information for someone else to be *able* to replicate the invention.  It doesn't always work that way in practice, but that has nothing to do with your trade secret tangent.  You know, you can actually read the patents involved if you like.  (Don't stop at the title or summary though, because that's not where the actual useful information which discloses the details of the patent can be found.  Read the claims instead, and understand the terms which indicate whether the claims, or groups thereof, must be read as a set, or can be read individually, that's very important.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you "do" two apps at the same time?  <i>Who doesn't multi-task these days?</i></p> </div><p>Most humans, actually.  Very few people can actually multi-task.  Most people try to emulate that by task-switching, which is exactly how the iPhone, iPad, and old PalmOS PDAs work.  If the time to switch between the apps is short enough (and it seems to be with most apps), there is very little practical difference between bringing an already running app to the surface, and swapping which app is actually running.  In practice, the most noticeable difference between a hand-held device where users task-swap and where users 'mutli-task' is that the battery lasts longer and apps perform more consistently in the task-swapping environment.  Poorly written apps that take too long to load in a task-swap environment are the equivalent of poorly written apps that take too much memory for other apps to run well in a multi-task environment.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How do I "do" Java and Flash?  <i>I mean if it is the best way to browse the web, then I assume it supports key web technologies.</i></p> </div><p>You really think Java and Flash are 'key web technologies'?  I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't have either on any of my computers, and I can't say I miss them, so I'd say the iPhone *does* support 'key web technologies'.  YMMV</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How "do" I drag and drop music and documents onto my iPhone/iPad from Linux and Windows?  <i>Am I free to not use iTunes?</i></p> </div><p>Well, if someone else writes a utility to communicate with the iPhone/iPad, sure.  That's not the angle Apple chose to go, so they didn't write that utility.  They wrote a utility to organize your music collection, and transfer it to the devices they make.  (Palm used to do that.  It's really a shame they can't be bothered to do it any more.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How "do" I tether my laptop to my iPhone or ipad for internet access?  <i>Android has a wifi-tether app, is there an app for that on the iPhone?</i></p> </div><p>I don't own an iPad, but the iPhone can tether just fine.  It'll be able to do so in the US once AT&amp;T enables support for it on their network.  That's not an Apple issue though.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How "do" people who don't have an Intel based Mac write apps?  <i>I can write Android and Blackberry apps without needed specific hardware.</i></p> </div><p>Really?  No specific hardware?  I'd like to see you write an Android or Blackberry app on an iPhone then.  No?  How about an XO-PC?  What, the tool-chain isn't ready for that yet?  You need a Mac that's less than 3.5 years old to write software for an Apple device that's about 2 years old.  That's not terribly specific.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How "do" I release iPhone apps, without giving away my intellectual property and source code? <i>Does Apple allow me to protect my trade secrets like it does?</i></p> </div><p>You plainly have no idea what you're talking about here.  The only thing you've got to send to Apple to get it in their store is the executable package.  No source code needed.  If your trade secrets can be gleaned by running your app, they aren't trade secrets anymore because you didn't keep them secret.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How "do" I not pay so much and have my choice of carrier? <i>AT&amp;T's network is cheap while the plans are expensive.</i></p> </div><p>All the carriers we have in the US suck pretty hard.  AT&amp;T is better than their competition in my area.  YMMV</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This patent BS is a joke .
Did HTC hack , steal or corrupt Apple 's trade secrets ?
Not at all and nobody believes that .
It is one thing if a company steals your stuff , it is completely different if they come up with a similar idea/process independent of you.Obviously , not .
Patents , by definition , ca n't be trade secrets , because ( in theory ) to get the patent you have to disclose enough information for someone else to be * able * to replicate the invention .
It does n't always work that way in practice , but that has nothing to do with your trade secret tangent .
You know , you can actually read the patents involved if you like .
( Do n't stop at the title or summary though , because that 's not where the actual useful information which discloses the details of the patent can be found .
Read the claims instead , and understand the terms which indicate whether the claims , or groups thereof , must be read as a set , or can be read individually , that 's very important .
) How do you " do " two apps at the same time ?
Who does n't multi-task these days ?
Most humans , actually .
Very few people can actually multi-task .
Most people try to emulate that by task-switching , which is exactly how the iPhone , iPad , and old PalmOS PDAs work .
If the time to switch between the apps is short enough ( and it seems to be with most apps ) , there is very little practical difference between bringing an already running app to the surface , and swapping which app is actually running .
In practice , the most noticeable difference between a hand-held device where users task-swap and where users 'mutli-task ' is that the battery lasts longer and apps perform more consistently in the task-swapping environment .
Poorly written apps that take too long to load in a task-swap environment are the equivalent of poorly written apps that take too much memory for other apps to run well in a multi-task environment.How do I " do " Java and Flash ?
I mean if it is the best way to browse the web , then I assume it supports key web technologies .
You really think Java and Flash are 'key web technologies ' ?
I guess you 're entitled to your opinion , but I do n't have either on any of my computers , and I ca n't say I miss them , so I 'd say the iPhone * does * support 'key web technologies' .
YMMVHow " do " I drag and drop music and documents onto my iPhone/iPad from Linux and Windows ?
Am I free to not use iTunes ?
Well , if someone else writes a utility to communicate with the iPhone/iPad , sure .
That 's not the angle Apple chose to go , so they did n't write that utility .
They wrote a utility to organize your music collection , and transfer it to the devices they make .
( Palm used to do that .
It 's really a shame they ca n't be bothered to do it any more .
) How " do " I tether my laptop to my iPhone or ipad for internet access ?
Android has a wifi-tether app , is there an app for that on the iPhone ?
I do n't own an iPad , but the iPhone can tether just fine .
It 'll be able to do so in the US once AT&amp;T enables support for it on their network .
That 's not an Apple issue though.How " do " people who do n't have an Intel based Mac write apps ?
I can write Android and Blackberry apps without needed specific hardware .
Really ? No specific hardware ?
I 'd like to see you write an Android or Blackberry app on an iPhone then .
No ? How about an XO-PC ?
What , the tool-chain is n't ready for that yet ?
You need a Mac that 's less than 3.5 years old to write software for an Apple device that 's about 2 years old .
That 's not terribly specific.How " do " I release iPhone apps , without giving away my intellectual property and source code ?
Does Apple allow me to protect my trade secrets like it does ?
You plainly have no idea what you 're talking about here .
The only thing you 've got to send to Apple to get it in their store is the executable package .
No source code needed .
If your trade secrets can be gleaned by running your app , they are n't trade secrets anymore because you did n't keep them secret.How " do " I not pay so much and have my choice of carrier ?
AT&amp;T 's network is cheap while the plans are expensive .
All the carriers we have in the US suck pretty hard .
AT&amp;T is better than their competition in my area .
YMMV</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This patent BS is a joke.
Did HTC hack, steal or corrupt Apple's trade secrets?
Not at all and nobody believes that.
It is one thing if a company steals your stuff, it is completely different if they come up with a similar idea/process independent of you.Obviously, not.
Patents, by definition, can't be trade secrets, because (in theory) to get the patent you have to disclose enough information for someone else to be *able* to replicate the invention.
It doesn't always work that way in practice, but that has nothing to do with your trade secret tangent.
You know, you can actually read the patents involved if you like.
(Don't stop at the title or summary though, because that's not where the actual useful information which discloses the details of the patent can be found.
Read the claims instead, and understand the terms which indicate whether the claims, or groups thereof, must be read as a set, or can be read individually, that's very important.
)How do you "do" two apps at the same time?
Who doesn't multi-task these days?
Most humans, actually.
Very few people can actually multi-task.
Most people try to emulate that by task-switching, which is exactly how the iPhone, iPad, and old PalmOS PDAs work.
If the time to switch between the apps is short enough (and it seems to be with most apps), there is very little practical difference between bringing an already running app to the surface, and swapping which app is actually running.
In practice, the most noticeable difference between a hand-held device where users task-swap and where users 'mutli-task' is that the battery lasts longer and apps perform more consistently in the task-swapping environment.
Poorly written apps that take too long to load in a task-swap environment are the equivalent of poorly written apps that take too much memory for other apps to run well in a multi-task environment.How do I "do" Java and Flash?
I mean if it is the best way to browse the web, then I assume it supports key web technologies.
You really think Java and Flash are 'key web technologies'?
I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't have either on any of my computers, and I can't say I miss them, so I'd say the iPhone *does* support 'key web technologies'.
YMMVHow "do" I drag and drop music and documents onto my iPhone/iPad from Linux and Windows?
Am I free to not use iTunes?
Well, if someone else writes a utility to communicate with the iPhone/iPad, sure.
That's not the angle Apple chose to go, so they didn't write that utility.
They wrote a utility to organize your music collection, and transfer it to the devices they make.
(Palm used to do that.
It's really a shame they can't be bothered to do it any more.
)How "do" I tether my laptop to my iPhone or ipad for internet access?
Android has a wifi-tether app, is there an app for that on the iPhone?
I don't own an iPad, but the iPhone can tether just fine.
It'll be able to do so in the US once AT&amp;T enables support for it on their network.
That's not an Apple issue though.How "do" people who don't have an Intel based Mac write apps?
I can write Android and Blackberry apps without needed specific hardware.
Really?  No specific hardware?
I'd like to see you write an Android or Blackberry app on an iPhone then.
No?  How about an XO-PC?
What, the tool-chain isn't ready for that yet?
You need a Mac that's less than 3.5 years old to write software for an Apple device that's about 2 years old.
That's not terribly specific.How "do" I release iPhone apps, without giving away my intellectual property and source code?
Does Apple allow me to protect my trade secrets like it does?
You plainly have no idea what you're talking about here.
The only thing you've got to send to Apple to get it in their store is the executable package.
No source code needed.
If your trade secrets can be gleaned by running your app, they aren't trade secrets anymore because you didn't keep them secret.How "do" I not pay so much and have my choice of carrier?
AT&amp;T's network is cheap while the plans are expensive.
All the carriers we have in the US suck pretty hard.
AT&amp;T is better than their competition in my area.
YMMV
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332802</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe you should stop endorsing blackmail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267557240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And given Apple's lawsuit against HTC, I'd say Nokia's decision to demand a license to Apple's patents is pretty damn prescient, don't you think?</p><p>Seriously, who is worse off if the two can't use each other's patents: Nokia, which has to avoid a few multitouch gestures, or Apple who has to avoid using basically any radio device at all?</p><p>Apple are giant cocks. That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And given Apple 's lawsuit against HTC , I 'd say Nokia 's decision to demand a license to Apple 's patents is pretty damn prescient , do n't you think ? Seriously , who is worse off if the two ca n't use each other 's patents : Nokia , which has to avoid a few multitouch gestures , or Apple who has to avoid using basically any radio device at all ? Apple are giant cocks .
That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And given Apple's lawsuit against HTC, I'd say Nokia's decision to demand a license to Apple's patents is pretty damn prescient, don't you think?Seriously, who is worse off if the two can't use each other's patents: Nokia, which has to avoid a few multitouch gestures, or Apple who has to avoid using basically any radio device at all?Apple are giant cocks.
That is all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331368</id>
	<title>info on en.swpat.org/wiki</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1267552200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
  Here's the software patent info I've gathered on these topics so far:
</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Apple\_inc." title="swpat.org">Apple inc.</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Nokia" title="swpat.org">Nokia</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Litigation" title="swpat.org">Litigation</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Infringement\_is\_unavoidable" title="swpat.org">Infringement is unavoidable</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf\_as\_text" title="swpat.org">ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text</a> [swpat.org] - not about Apple, but this is the big patent news of the month</li></ul><p>
  swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the software patent info I 've gathered on these topics so far : Apple inc. [ swpat.org ] Nokia [ swpat.org ] Litigation [ swpat.org ] Infringement is unavoidable [ swpat.org ] ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text [ swpat.org ] - not about Apple , but this is the big patent news of the month swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki , help welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Here's the software patent info I've gathered on these topics so far:

 Apple inc. [swpat.org]  Nokia [swpat.org]  Litigation [swpat.org]  Infringement is unavoidable [swpat.org]  ACTA-6437-10.pdf as text [swpat.org] - not about Apple, but this is the big patent news of the month
  swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31340180</id>
	<title>Re:I actually don't see a problem here...</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1267548600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The iPhone was hugely innovative, and there was a lot there that was genuinely new.</i></p><p>Yeah?  Like what?  Except for Apple's usual slick packaging and the multitouch technology they bought elsewhere, I don't see anything innovative in the iPhone.  Companies like Psion, Palm, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia were the commercial pioneers in this area, and university research labs and companies like IBM and Xerox created most of the hard technologies.</p><p><i>Without diving into the specifics,</i></p><p>Geez, why don't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone was hugely innovative , and there was a lot there that was genuinely new.Yeah ?
Like what ?
Except for Apple 's usual slick packaging and the multitouch technology they bought elsewhere , I do n't see anything innovative in the iPhone .
Companies like Psion , Palm , Microsoft , RIM , and Nokia were the commercial pioneers in this area , and university research labs and companies like IBM and Xerox created most of the hard technologies.Without diving into the specifics,Geez , why do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone was hugely innovative, and there was a lot there that was genuinely new.Yeah?
Like what?
Except for Apple's usual slick packaging and the multitouch technology they bought elsewhere, I don't see anything innovative in the iPhone.
Companies like Psion, Palm, Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia were the commercial pioneers in this area, and university research labs and companies like IBM and Xerox created most of the hard technologies.Without diving into the specifics,Geez, why don't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332816</id>
	<title>Xerox would like a word</title>
	<author>russlar</author>
	<datestamp>1267557240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> 'We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.'</p></div><p>Mr. Jobs, I have Xerox holding on line 1 for you. They say they'd like to talk to you about some kind of mouse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions , or we can do something about it .
We 've decided to do something about it .
We think competition is healthy , but competitors should create their own original technology , not steal ours.'Mr .
Jobs , I have Xerox holding on line 1 for you .
They say they 'd like to talk to you about some kind of mouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it.
We've decided to do something about it.
We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.'Mr.
Jobs, I have Xerox holding on line 1 for you.
They say they'd like to talk to you about some kind of mouse.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333612</id>
	<title>Re:Xerox would like a word</title>
	<author>WhiteFluffyChest</author>
	<datestamp>1267560420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly, just what I was thinking.</p><p>I think Apple are just making a big stink about this and it won't make them look good at all.</p><p>I thought Apple was run by fun loving hippies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , just what I was thinking.I think Apple are just making a big stink about this and it wo n't make them look good at all.I thought Apple was run by fun loving hippies : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, just what I was thinking.I think Apple are just making a big stink about this and it won't make them look good at all.I thought Apple was run by fun loving hippies :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333008</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this shit patentable?</title>
	<author>16K Ram Pack</author>
	<datestamp>1267558080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Patents need to be restricted to real inventions, not simple choices that anybody with a bachelor's degree could have come up with when faced by a problem. Fix this and you fix a lot of the problems with patent trolling</p></div><p>The main question is something like "in a week of thinking, would someone in a similar field have arrived at the same solution"?</p><p>Patents should be about revolutionary solutions, like James Dyson applying what he knew about grain sorting to vacuum cleaning, or Paul Graham applying Bayesian logic to spam. Saying "a cyclonic vacuum cleaner that has a longer hose" shouldn't count.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents need to be restricted to real inventions , not simple choices that anybody with a bachelor 's degree could have come up with when faced by a problem .
Fix this and you fix a lot of the problems with patent trollingThe main question is something like " in a week of thinking , would someone in a similar field have arrived at the same solution " ? Patents should be about revolutionary solutions , like James Dyson applying what he knew about grain sorting to vacuum cleaning , or Paul Graham applying Bayesian logic to spam .
Saying " a cyclonic vacuum cleaner that has a longer hose " should n't count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents need to be restricted to real inventions, not simple choices that anybody with a bachelor's degree could have come up with when faced by a problem.
Fix this and you fix a lot of the problems with patent trollingThe main question is something like "in a week of thinking, would someone in a similar field have arrived at the same solution"?Patents should be about revolutionary solutions, like James Dyson applying what he knew about grain sorting to vacuum cleaning, or Paul Graham applying Bayesian logic to spam.
Saying "a cyclonic vacuum cleaner that has a longer hose" shouldn't count.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31336350</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Apple should pay their royalties first?</title>
	<author>hondo77</author>
	<datestamp>1267527180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple can not keep up with 10+ manufacturers bringing out new and innovative hardware at a rate of a new phone or two a month.</p></div><p>You mean just like the market Apple entered three years ago? Yeah, they can't <em>possibly</em> compete in a market like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple can not keep up with 10 + manufacturers bringing out new and innovative hardware at a rate of a new phone or two a month.You mean just like the market Apple entered three years ago ?
Yeah , they ca n't possibly compete in a market like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple can not keep up with 10+ manufacturers bringing out new and innovative hardware at a rate of a new phone or two a month.You mean just like the market Apple entered three years ago?
Yeah, they can't possibly compete in a market like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331384</id>
	<title>More Details &amp; HTC Response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267552320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Engadget just <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-20-iphone-patents/" title="engadget.com">released more details</a> [engadget.com] with a statement from HTC:<p><div class="quote"><p>We only learned of Apple's actions based on your stories and Apple's press release. We have not been served yet so we are in no position to comment on the claims. We respect and value patent rights but we are committed to defending our own innovations. We have been innovating and patenting our own technology for 13 years.</p></div><p>Apparently some 700 pages were just filed and they aren't all in the court's record system yet.  In addition some of the patents are pretty questionable.  Crazy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Engadget just released more details [ engadget.com ] with a statement from HTC : We only learned of Apple 's actions based on your stories and Apple 's press release .
We have not been served yet so we are in no position to comment on the claims .
We respect and value patent rights but we are committed to defending our own innovations .
We have been innovating and patenting our own technology for 13 years.Apparently some 700 pages were just filed and they are n't all in the court 's record system yet .
In addition some of the patents are pretty questionable .
Crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engadget just released more details [engadget.com] with a statement from HTC:We only learned of Apple's actions based on your stories and Apple's press release.
We have not been served yet so we are in no position to comment on the claims.
We respect and value patent rights but we are committed to defending our own innovations.
We have been innovating and patenting our own technology for 13 years.Apparently some 700 pages were just filed and they aren't all in the court's record system yet.
In addition some of the patents are pretty questionable.
Crazy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334148</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Apple should pay their royalties first?</title>
	<author>Miamicanes</author>
	<datestamp>1267562100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Of course it's aimed at Google, Google will be the death of the iPhone.</p><p>I seriously doubt it, anymore than Apple or Linux have been the death of Windows. There's always going to be a market for an attractive, polished phone that "just works" and makes nontechnical users with lots of money happy. I personally see Android evolving towards two different market segments: dirt-cheap phones that are nice, but not as polished or powerful as Apple's best iPhone (for the unwashed masses), and high-end Android phones embraced by users who really want pocket-sized laptops... the same people who end up running regedit within 5 minutes of booting a newly-installed copy of Windows for the first time, or run Linux on their desktop PC. I'm convinced Microsoft is going to eventually buy Blackberry &amp; migrate it to Windows Phone, or find a way to otherwise hijack and take over that market segment.</p><p>I don't see Apple's total market share ever really exceeding 10\% or so, because their phones' most compelling features (besides "apple coolness") will inevitably end up running on Android phones (with or without anyone's blessing) as fast as they show up on Apple's own phones. By the same token, I think Microsoft's going to have a seriously uphill battle to win the hearts and wallets of anyone not shackled to an Enterprise Management Initiative(tm)... especially after yesterday's idiotic announcement that they're going to completely fuck and alienate one of their few remaining groups of loyal, hardcore supporters -- the people who paid lots of money for a Touch HD2, only to be slapped and told they can't have Windows Phone 7 because their phones have 5 hardkeys instead of Microsoft's mandated 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Of course it 's aimed at Google , Google will be the death of the iPhone.I seriously doubt it , anymore than Apple or Linux have been the death of Windows .
There 's always going to be a market for an attractive , polished phone that " just works " and makes nontechnical users with lots of money happy .
I personally see Android evolving towards two different market segments : dirt-cheap phones that are nice , but not as polished or powerful as Apple 's best iPhone ( for the unwashed masses ) , and high-end Android phones embraced by users who really want pocket-sized laptops... the same people who end up running regedit within 5 minutes of booting a newly-installed copy of Windows for the first time , or run Linux on their desktop PC .
I 'm convinced Microsoft is going to eventually buy Blackberry &amp; migrate it to Windows Phone , or find a way to otherwise hijack and take over that market segment.I do n't see Apple 's total market share ever really exceeding 10 \ % or so , because their phones ' most compelling features ( besides " apple coolness " ) will inevitably end up running on Android phones ( with or without anyone 's blessing ) as fast as they show up on Apple 's own phones .
By the same token , I think Microsoft 's going to have a seriously uphill battle to win the hearts and wallets of anyone not shackled to an Enterprise Management Initiative ( tm ) ... especially after yesterday 's idiotic announcement that they 're going to completely fuck and alienate one of their few remaining groups of loyal , hardcore supporters -- the people who paid lots of money for a Touch HD2 , only to be slapped and told they ca n't have Windows Phone 7 because their phones have 5 hardkeys instead of Microsoft 's mandated 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Of course it's aimed at Google, Google will be the death of the iPhone.I seriously doubt it, anymore than Apple or Linux have been the death of Windows.
There's always going to be a market for an attractive, polished phone that "just works" and makes nontechnical users with lots of money happy.
I personally see Android evolving towards two different market segments: dirt-cheap phones that are nice, but not as polished or powerful as Apple's best iPhone (for the unwashed masses), and high-end Android phones embraced by users who really want pocket-sized laptops... the same people who end up running regedit within 5 minutes of booting a newly-installed copy of Windows for the first time, or run Linux on their desktop PC.
I'm convinced Microsoft is going to eventually buy Blackberry &amp; migrate it to Windows Phone, or find a way to otherwise hijack and take over that market segment.I don't see Apple's total market share ever really exceeding 10\% or so, because their phones' most compelling features (besides "apple coolness") will inevitably end up running on Android phones (with or without anyone's blessing) as fast as they show up on Apple's own phones.
By the same token, I think Microsoft's going to have a seriously uphill battle to win the hearts and wallets of anyone not shackled to an Enterprise Management Initiative(tm)... especially after yesterday's idiotic announcement that they're going to completely fuck and alienate one of their few remaining groups of loyal, hardcore supporters -- the people who paid lots of money for a Touch HD2, only to be slapped and told they can't have Windows Phone 7 because their phones have 5 hardkeys instead of Microsoft's mandated 3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331620</id>
	<title>Maybe you should stop endorsing blackmail?</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1267553160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Maybe Apple should pay Nokia's patent royalties first</i></p><p>I think Apple would be happy to do so.  The only problem is, unlike with every other company Nokia will not except ONLY money in the case of Apple - they also demand cross-licencing of patents (presumably similar to the ones in question).</p><p>Why do you think it's fair that Nokia can demand different terms from licensers of a technology, when Nokia supposedly set forth the licenses under the RAND construct?  That stands for "reasonable and non-discriminatory".  How is demanding specific patents from Apple non-discriminatory?</p><p>Apple has a lawsuit going there, demanding they be able to pay Nokia as per normal terms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Apple should pay Nokia 's patent royalties firstI think Apple would be happy to do so .
The only problem is , unlike with every other company Nokia will not except ONLY money in the case of Apple - they also demand cross-licencing of patents ( presumably similar to the ones in question ) .Why do you think it 's fair that Nokia can demand different terms from licensers of a technology , when Nokia supposedly set forth the licenses under the RAND construct ?
That stands for " reasonable and non-discriminatory " .
How is demanding specific patents from Apple non-discriminatory ? Apple has a lawsuit going there , demanding they be able to pay Nokia as per normal terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Apple should pay Nokia's patent royalties firstI think Apple would be happy to do so.
The only problem is, unlike with every other company Nokia will not except ONLY money in the case of Apple - they also demand cross-licencing of patents (presumably similar to the ones in question).Why do you think it's fair that Nokia can demand different terms from licensers of a technology, when Nokia supposedly set forth the licenses under the RAND construct?
That stands for "reasonable and non-discriminatory".
How is demanding specific patents from Apple non-discriminatory?Apple has a lawsuit going there, demanding they be able to pay Nokia as per normal terms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334382</id>
	<title>A Few Points</title>
	<author>Me! Me! 42</author>
	<datestamp>1267563000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a few points:<br>
RE: touch screens -- Fingerorks (owned by apple) just because you've seen it elsewhere doesn't mean Apple has no claim.<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerworks" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerworks</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>

RE: NOKIA patents<br>
Terms must be "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory." If they have pooled the patent, they need to offer the same terms to Apple as everyone else.<br> <br>

RE:<br>
"Stolen BSD kernel"?<br>
Get off drugs, scratchpaper!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a few points : RE : touch screens -- Fingerorks ( owned by apple ) just because you 've seen it elsewhere does n't mean Apple has no claim .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerworks [ wikipedia.org ] RE : NOKIA patents Terms must be " fair , reasonable , and non-discriminatory .
" If they have pooled the patent , they need to offer the same terms to Apple as everyone else .
RE : " Stolen BSD kernel " ?
Get off drugs , scratchpaper !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a few points:
RE: touch screens -- Fingerorks (owned by apple) just because you've seen it elsewhere doesn't mean Apple has no claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerworks [wikipedia.org]  

RE: NOKIA patents
Terms must be "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.
" If they have pooled the patent, they need to offer the same terms to Apple as everyone else.
RE:
"Stolen BSD kernel"?
Get off drugs, scratchpaper!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332128</id>
	<title>Time to get out the iPad</title>
	<author>magarj</author>
	<datestamp>1267555020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple is just a bit irritable and bloated, must be time to get out the iPad.  As they say, when a company stops innovating, they start litigating. Apple is throwing stones while living in a glass house.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is just a bit irritable and bloated , must be time to get out the iPad .
As they say , when a company stops innovating , they start litigating .
Apple is throwing stones while living in a glass house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is just a bit irritable and bloated, must be time to get out the iPad.
As they say, when a company stops innovating, they start litigating.
Apple is throwing stones while living in a glass house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31342786</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile, out in the real world...</title>
	<author>CrazyBusError</author>
	<datestamp>1267614840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's nice for you.
<br> <br>However, I live in a city with a fair bit of history, too (Edinburgh, Scotland).  It too has a university (in fact it has three) with a good tech reputation and it too has 50mbit broadband.  Know how many iPhones I see?
<br> <br>
Shitloads.  iPhones every-bloody-where.  You pretty much can't spit without hitting someone carrying one of the damn things, in fact.
<br> <br>
Somehow, given Apple's sales figures, and even with a population of only 120,000, I doubt there's a black hole in iPhone sale in one specific area of the west of England...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nice for you .
However , I live in a city with a fair bit of history , too ( Edinburgh , Scotland ) .
It too has a university ( in fact it has three ) with a good tech reputation and it too has 50mbit broadband .
Know how many iPhones I see ?
Shitloads. iPhones every-bloody-where .
You pretty much ca n't spit without hitting someone carrying one of the damn things , in fact .
Somehow , given Apple 's sales figures , and even with a population of only 120,000 , I doubt there 's a black hole in iPhone sale in one specific area of the west of England.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nice for you.
However, I live in a city with a fair bit of history, too (Edinburgh, Scotland).
It too has a university (in fact it has three) with a good tech reputation and it too has 50mbit broadband.
Know how many iPhones I see?
Shitloads.  iPhones every-bloody-where.
You pretty much can't spit without hitting someone carrying one of the damn things, in fact.
Somehow, given Apple's sales figures, and even with a population of only 120,000, I doubt there's a black hole in iPhone sale in one specific area of the west of England...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332758</id>
	<title>Kind of funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267557060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours"</p><p>He is within his rights to do this, I am not fighting that. But I just find this really funny considering his entire product is something he took from Berkeley. Yes, Unix isn't patented, but Jobs just loves the legal battles it seems.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" competitors should create their own original technology , not steal ours " He is within his rights to do this , I am not fighting that .
But I just find this really funny considering his entire product is something he took from Berkeley .
Yes , Unix is n't patented , but Jobs just loves the legal battles it seems .
; /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours"He is within his rights to do this, I am not fighting that.
But I just find this really funny considering his entire product is something he took from Berkeley.
Yes, Unix isn't patented, but Jobs just loves the legal battles it seems.
;/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332104</id>
	<title>The suit is targeting android phones.</title>
	<author>grimmy</author>
	<datestamp>1267555020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The OP should have RTFA lol It's in the update with the complaint.</p><p>[quote]<br>certain mobile communication devices including cellular phones and smart phones, including at least phones incorporating the<br>Android Operating System (collectively, &ldquo;the Accused Products&rdquo;)<br>[/quote]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The OP should have RTFA lol It 's in the update with the complaint .
[ quote ] certain mobile communication devices including cellular phones and smart phones , including at least phones incorporating theAndroid Operating System ( collectively ,    the Accused Products    ) [ /quote ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OP should have RTFA lol It's in the update with the complaint.
[quote]certain mobile communication devices including cellular phones and smart phones, including at least phones incorporating theAndroid Operating System (collectively, “the Accused Products”)[/quote]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332072</id>
	<title>Steve Jobs is a boner</title>
	<author>jackspenn</author>
	<datestamp>1267554900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Steve Jobs is a dick and the people who hang onto him are nuts.</b>
<br> <br>
This patent BS is a joke.  Did HTC hack, steal or corrupt Apple's trade secrets?  Not at all and nobody believes that.  It is one thing if a company steals your stuff, it is completely different if they come up with a similar idea/process independent of you.
<br> <br>
The part that makes this so laughable is that Apple is using the iPad name when two other companies already have claims to it.  It is amazing to me that a company that bullies and takes from others with one hand has the balls to wave a finger at other companies (Especially ones that behavior better).
<br> <br>
I love the iPad propaganda that says "you just do".
<br> <br>
Really?
<br> <br>
How do you "do" two apps at the same time?  <i>Who doesn't multi-task these days?</i>
<br> <br>
How do I "do" Java and Flash?  <i>I mean if it is the best way to browse the web, then I assume it supports key web
technologies.</i>
<br> <br>
How "do" I drag and drop music and documents onto my iPhone/iPad from Linux and Windows?  <i>Am I free to not use iTunes?</i>
<br> <br>
How "do" I tether my laptop to my iPhone or ipad for internet access?  <i>Android has a wifi-tether app, is there an app for that on the iPhone?</i>
<br> <br>
How "do" people who don't have an Intel based Mac write apps?  <i>I can write Android and Blackberry apps without needed specific hardware.</i>
<br> <br>
How "do" I release iPhone apps, without giving away my intellectual property and source code? <i>Does Apple allow me to protect my trade secrets like it does?</i>
<br> <br>
How "do" I not pay so much and have my choice of carrier? <i>AT&amp;T's network is cheap while the plans are expensive.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs is a dick and the people who hang onto him are nuts .
This patent BS is a joke .
Did HTC hack , steal or corrupt Apple 's trade secrets ?
Not at all and nobody believes that .
It is one thing if a company steals your stuff , it is completely different if they come up with a similar idea/process independent of you .
The part that makes this so laughable is that Apple is using the iPad name when two other companies already have claims to it .
It is amazing to me that a company that bullies and takes from others with one hand has the balls to wave a finger at other companies ( Especially ones that behavior better ) .
I love the iPad propaganda that says " you just do " .
Really ? How do you " do " two apps at the same time ?
Who does n't multi-task these days ?
How do I " do " Java and Flash ?
I mean if it is the best way to browse the web , then I assume it supports key web technologies .
How " do " I drag and drop music and documents onto my iPhone/iPad from Linux and Windows ?
Am I free to not use iTunes ?
How " do " I tether my laptop to my iPhone or ipad for internet access ?
Android has a wifi-tether app , is there an app for that on the iPhone ?
How " do " people who do n't have an Intel based Mac write apps ?
I can write Android and Blackberry apps without needed specific hardware .
How " do " I release iPhone apps , without giving away my intellectual property and source code ?
Does Apple allow me to protect my trade secrets like it does ?
How " do " I not pay so much and have my choice of carrier ?
AT&amp;T 's network is cheap while the plans are expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs is a dick and the people who hang onto him are nuts.
This patent BS is a joke.
Did HTC hack, steal or corrupt Apple's trade secrets?
Not at all and nobody believes that.
It is one thing if a company steals your stuff, it is completely different if they come up with a similar idea/process independent of you.
The part that makes this so laughable is that Apple is using the iPad name when two other companies already have claims to it.
It is amazing to me that a company that bullies and takes from others with one hand has the balls to wave a finger at other companies (Especially ones that behavior better).
I love the iPad propaganda that says "you just do".
Really?
 
How do you "do" two apps at the same time?
Who doesn't multi-task these days?
How do I "do" Java and Flash?
I mean if it is the best way to browse the web, then I assume it supports key web
technologies.
How "do" I drag and drop music and documents onto my iPhone/iPad from Linux and Windows?
Am I free to not use iTunes?
How "do" I tether my laptop to my iPhone or ipad for internet access?
Android has a wifi-tether app, is there an app for that on the iPhone?
How "do" people who don't have an Intel based Mac write apps?
I can write Android and Blackberry apps without needed specific hardware.
How "do" I release iPhone apps, without giving away my intellectual property and source code?
Does Apple allow me to protect my trade secrets like it does?
How "do" I not pay so much and have my choice of carrier?
AT&amp;T's network is cheap while the plans are expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335634</id>
	<title>So Apple have a right to use, but Nokia don't?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267524360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So wait - it's wrong that Nokia don't allow Apple to use Nokia's patents, but Nokia are "blackmailing" for wanting Apple's patents? If you say so.</p><p>How about this: Apple pay Nokia X money to use their patents. Then Nokia pay Apple X money to use their patents<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so either what you propose works out the same as what Nokia want, or you're endorsing a situation where Apple should be allowed to use Nokia's patents for money, but not the other way round!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So wait - it 's wrong that Nokia do n't allow Apple to use Nokia 's patents , but Nokia are " blackmailing " for wanting Apple 's patents ?
If you say so.How about this : Apple pay Nokia X money to use their patents .
Then Nokia pay Apple X money to use their patents ... so either what you propose works out the same as what Nokia want , or you 're endorsing a situation where Apple should be allowed to use Nokia 's patents for money , but not the other way round !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So wait - it's wrong that Nokia don't allow Apple to use Nokia's patents, but Nokia are "blackmailing" for wanting Apple's patents?
If you say so.How about this: Apple pay Nokia X money to use their patents.
Then Nokia pay Apple X money to use their patents ... so either what you propose works out the same as what Nokia want, or you're endorsing a situation where Apple should be allowed to use Nokia's patents for money, but not the other way round!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331562</id>
	<title>Re:I actually don't see a problem here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267552980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>everyone assumes from their popularity and aggressive marketing that they have invented everything they see in the product. apple is very good at polish and end user friendliness but most of the ideas are not new, only first to mass market</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>everyone assumes from their popularity and aggressive marketing that they have invented everything they see in the product .
apple is very good at polish and end user friendliness but most of the ideas are not new , only first to mass market</tokentext>
<sentencetext>everyone assumes from their popularity and aggressive marketing that they have invented everything they see in the product.
apple is very good at polish and end user friendliness but most of the ideas are not new, only first to mass market</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333184</id>
	<title>Stupid move Apple.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1267558740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is a really stupid move. If Nokia, Samsung, Palm, RIM and Google pool their patents and fight back Apple will be nothing but smoking rubble when this is over with. Even Microsoft has interest in this since their Win Mob 7 phone tries to be like iPhone so much it gotta hurt.</p><p>The patents in themselves looks laughable and obvious so Apple could very well wind up loosing them in the process while being left defending themselves with the avalanche of patents the others has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a really stupid move .
If Nokia , Samsung , Palm , RIM and Google pool their patents and fight back Apple will be nothing but smoking rubble when this is over with .
Even Microsoft has interest in this since their Win Mob 7 phone tries to be like iPhone so much it got ta hurt.The patents in themselves looks laughable and obvious so Apple could very well wind up loosing them in the process while being left defending themselves with the avalanche of patents the others has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a really stupid move.
If Nokia, Samsung, Palm, RIM and Google pool their patents and fight back Apple will be nothing but smoking rubble when this is over with.
Even Microsoft has interest in this since their Win Mob 7 phone tries to be like iPhone so much it gotta hurt.The patents in themselves looks laughable and obvious so Apple could very well wind up loosing them in the process while being left defending themselves with the avalanche of patents the others has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333198</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this shit patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267558800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not an Apple fanboy. I dislike Apple. But I dislike those who hate patents even more. There are a lot of you on slashdot. You all likely don't do anything productive, or create anything, or write software, because if you did you would understand the need for patents.</p><p>Screen pinch to scale, auto rotating screen: if you guys think they're so obvious, how come none of you invented or even pitched these ideas years ago? Its obvious because this technology is ubiquitous now.</p><p>In the end, grow up, patents are important. Do something with your lives thats productive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not an Apple fanboy .
I dislike Apple .
But I dislike those who hate patents even more .
There are a lot of you on slashdot .
You all likely do n't do anything productive , or create anything , or write software , because if you did you would understand the need for patents.Screen pinch to scale , auto rotating screen : if you guys think they 're so obvious , how come none of you invented or even pitched these ideas years ago ?
Its obvious because this technology is ubiquitous now.In the end , grow up , patents are important .
Do something with your lives thats productive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not an Apple fanboy.
I dislike Apple.
But I dislike those who hate patents even more.
There are a lot of you on slashdot.
You all likely don't do anything productive, or create anything, or write software, because if you did you would understand the need for patents.Screen pinch to scale, auto rotating screen: if you guys think they're so obvious, how come none of you invented or even pitched these ideas years ago?
Its obvious because this technology is ubiquitous now.In the end, grow up, patents are important.
Do something with your lives thats productive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31340718</id>
	<title>strange one</title>
	<author>Exter-C</author>
	<datestamp>1267553700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an interesting lawsuit for a few different reasons. Firstly I am not sure if it was absolutely the first phone but it must have been pretty close to it but both Nokia and Sony Ericsson have had touch screen devices where you could move objects around and resize them etc using touch back before 2004. I believe that Nokias first touch screen was the 7710. Any sony had the p Series around the same time. On the Sony Ericsson side there was the P800 which was revolutionary at the time. In fact if you actually look at many of the elements of the P800/UIQ interface you can see that there is a major similarity between those of 2002 and the iphone of 2007. So I take it from that what apple actually has patents on is the thumb? I'm pretty sure there is prior art to that too.. depending if your a creationist or a evolutionist maybe the chimpanzee has some patents..</p><p>If we outline the patents what's explained in this patent 7,469,381 is something that you could do on the UIQ's back in 2002...</p><p>It's interesting that there are some more points relating to the Windows Mobile phones that they create as well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an interesting lawsuit for a few different reasons .
Firstly I am not sure if it was absolutely the first phone but it must have been pretty close to it but both Nokia and Sony Ericsson have had touch screen devices where you could move objects around and resize them etc using touch back before 2004 .
I believe that Nokias first touch screen was the 7710 .
Any sony had the p Series around the same time .
On the Sony Ericsson side there was the P800 which was revolutionary at the time .
In fact if you actually look at many of the elements of the P800/UIQ interface you can see that there is a major similarity between those of 2002 and the iphone of 2007 .
So I take it from that what apple actually has patents on is the thumb ?
I 'm pretty sure there is prior art to that too.. depending if your a creationist or a evolutionist maybe the chimpanzee has some patents..If we outline the patents what 's explained in this patent 7,469,381 is something that you could do on the UIQ 's back in 2002...It 's interesting that there are some more points relating to the Windows Mobile phones that they create as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an interesting lawsuit for a few different reasons.
Firstly I am not sure if it was absolutely the first phone but it must have been pretty close to it but both Nokia and Sony Ericsson have had touch screen devices where you could move objects around and resize them etc using touch back before 2004.
I believe that Nokias first touch screen was the 7710.
Any sony had the p Series around the same time.
On the Sony Ericsson side there was the P800 which was revolutionary at the time.
In fact if you actually look at many of the elements of the P800/UIQ interface you can see that there is a major similarity between those of 2002 and the iphone of 2007.
So I take it from that what apple actually has patents on is the thumb?
I'm pretty sure there is prior art to that too.. depending if your a creationist or a evolutionist maybe the chimpanzee has some patents..If we outline the patents what's explained in this patent 7,469,381 is something that you could do on the UIQ's back in 2002...It's interesting that there are some more points relating to the Windows Mobile phones that they create as well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332814</id>
	<title>Makes me want to go out and patent on using my A$$</title>
	<author>mswhippingboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267557240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm thinking about writing an app to wipe my a$$. I better apply for a patent for using my a$$ to interact with a touch screen device before Apple patents that too. It blows my mind that a patent can be granted for something as obvious as using one's fingers to interact with a device. Seems that prior art for this was established when we climbed out of the primordial soup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking about writing an app to wipe my a $ $ .
I better apply for a patent for using my a $ $ to interact with a touch screen device before Apple patents that too .
It blows my mind that a patent can be granted for something as obvious as using one 's fingers to interact with a device .
Seems that prior art for this was established when we climbed out of the primordial soup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking about writing an app to wipe my a$$.
I better apply for a patent for using my a$$ to interact with a touch screen device before Apple patents that too.
It blows my mind that a patent can be granted for something as obvious as using one's fingers to interact with a device.
Seems that prior art for this was established when we climbed out of the primordial soup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334556</id>
	<title>Thank you.</title>
	<author>jwietelmann</author>
	<datestamp>1267520520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I had mod points, I'd give you all of them.</p><p>So many people fall into the same old predictable argument of "well clearly it wasn't obvious if no one else did it yet," and "sure it seems obvious after the fact."  But you've illustrated exactly the problem with that line of thinking.  These companies aren't patenting novel solutions to old problems; they're patenting the most obvious solutions to new problems.  In our current patent system, the first person to encounter a new problem gets a patent.  So if I'm making a portable music player and I ask myself, "What's the best way to scroll through my playlist with continuous motion, given limited space?" then I inevitably come to the conclusion that I need a circle.  Unfortunately for me, Apple made iPods first, so if I want decent circular-motion-based controls, I'm dead in the water.</p><p>Just because you thought of a solution first does not mean that it wasn't obvious; in many cases it just means that you were the first one to encounter the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had mod points , I 'd give you all of them.So many people fall into the same old predictable argument of " well clearly it was n't obvious if no one else did it yet , " and " sure it seems obvious after the fact .
" But you 've illustrated exactly the problem with that line of thinking .
These companies are n't patenting novel solutions to old problems ; they 're patenting the most obvious solutions to new problems .
In our current patent system , the first person to encounter a new problem gets a patent .
So if I 'm making a portable music player and I ask myself , " What 's the best way to scroll through my playlist with continuous motion , given limited space ?
" then I inevitably come to the conclusion that I need a circle .
Unfortunately for me , Apple made iPods first , so if I want decent circular-motion-based controls , I 'm dead in the water.Just because you thought of a solution first does not mean that it was n't obvious ; in many cases it just means that you were the first one to encounter the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had mod points, I'd give you all of them.So many people fall into the same old predictable argument of "well clearly it wasn't obvious if no one else did it yet," and "sure it seems obvious after the fact.
"  But you've illustrated exactly the problem with that line of thinking.
These companies aren't patenting novel solutions to old problems; they're patenting the most obvious solutions to new problems.
In our current patent system, the first person to encounter a new problem gets a patent.
So if I'm making a portable music player and I ask myself, "What's the best way to scroll through my playlist with continuous motion, given limited space?
" then I inevitably come to the conclusion that I need a circle.
Unfortunately for me, Apple made iPods first, so if I want decent circular-motion-based controls, I'm dead in the water.Just because you thought of a solution first does not mean that it wasn't obvious; in many cases it just means that you were the first one to encounter the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334068</id>
	<title>Problems in sight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267561860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is jealously keeping those patents so only they could have UI advantage,and yet they released iphone without paying Nokia royalties (for hw patents).<br>With this move, it seems that they are starting to feel the market pressure from cheaper chinese phones, which apparently caught up in software (mostly thanks to Android, but there are others), while all of them anyway have same third party chipsets and most components. What Apple doesn't want is commodization of touch-smartphones, and that's what happens at the moment.</p><p>Once they sued Microsoft for UI patents but lost, I guess after trying to privatize computer market, now they are trying that with mobile market.<br>Any reasonable judge should throw those patents out of the window because they are mostly trivial software-patents like one-click.<br>Though Apple was clever to sue a Chinese company, not a giant like Google, maybe counting on causing anti-chinese bias that could help them win the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is jealously keeping those patents so only they could have UI advantage,and yet they released iphone without paying Nokia royalties ( for hw patents ) .With this move , it seems that they are starting to feel the market pressure from cheaper chinese phones , which apparently caught up in software ( mostly thanks to Android , but there are others ) , while all of them anyway have same third party chipsets and most components .
What Apple does n't want is commodization of touch-smartphones , and that 's what happens at the moment.Once they sued Microsoft for UI patents but lost , I guess after trying to privatize computer market , now they are trying that with mobile market.Any reasonable judge should throw those patents out of the window because they are mostly trivial software-patents like one-click.Though Apple was clever to sue a Chinese company , not a giant like Google , maybe counting on causing anti-chinese bias that could help them win the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is jealously keeping those patents so only they could have UI advantage,and yet they released iphone without paying Nokia royalties (for hw patents).With this move, it seems that they are starting to feel the market pressure from cheaper chinese phones, which apparently caught up in software (mostly thanks to Android, but there are others), while all of them anyway have same third party chipsets and most components.
What Apple doesn't want is commodization of touch-smartphones, and that's what happens at the moment.Once they sued Microsoft for UI patents but lost, I guess after trying to privatize computer market, now they are trying that with mobile market.Any reasonable judge should throw those patents out of the window because they are mostly trivial software-patents like one-click.Though Apple was clever to sue a Chinese company, not a giant like Google, maybe counting on causing anti-chinese bias that could help them win the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331842</id>
	<title>User Interface patents</title>
	<author>kylant</author>
	<datestamp>1267554000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I particularly don't like about this is that it appears that most of Apple's patents are about the user interface (pinch-zoom,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...), not about actual hardware inventions.<p>

The difference is, that hardware patents can usually be worked around, as long as you can keep the user interface stable. Changing the user interface on the other hand means that the enduser must adapt, which he usually is reluctant to do. It is a form of monopoly.</p><p>

Imagine, for comparison, that Alfred Vacheron had patented the steering wheel in 1894 and had been unwilling to license it to competitors. The outcome could have been that dozens of different ways to steer a car would have been invented and users would have troubles switching between manufactures. A serious hindrance to a competitive market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I particularly do n't like about this is that it appears that most of Apple 's patents are about the user interface ( pinch-zoom , ... ) , not about actual hardware inventions .
The difference is , that hardware patents can usually be worked around , as long as you can keep the user interface stable .
Changing the user interface on the other hand means that the enduser must adapt , which he usually is reluctant to do .
It is a form of monopoly .
Imagine , for comparison , that Alfred Vacheron had patented the steering wheel in 1894 and had been unwilling to license it to competitors .
The outcome could have been that dozens of different ways to steer a car would have been invented and users would have troubles switching between manufactures .
A serious hindrance to a competitive market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I particularly don't like about this is that it appears that most of Apple's patents are about the user interface (pinch-zoom, ...), not about actual hardware inventions.
The difference is, that hardware patents can usually be worked around, as long as you can keep the user interface stable.
Changing the user interface on the other hand means that the enduser must adapt, which he usually is reluctant to do.
It is a form of monopoly.
Imagine, for comparison, that Alfred Vacheron had patented the steering wheel in 1894 and had been unwilling to license it to competitors.
The outcome could have been that dozens of different ways to steer a car would have been invented and users would have troubles switching between manufactures.
A serious hindrance to a competitive market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332626</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Apple should pay their royalties first?</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1267556580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This isn't aimed at HTC;  it's aimed at Google.  Don't kid yourself.  To whom, is Google paying license fees?</p></div><p>Wrong, it targets WinMo phones too.</p><p>From Engadget:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> In addition, the ITC complaint lists a number of specific HTC handsets as exhibits, including the Nexus One, Touch Pro, Touch Diamond, Touch Pro2, Tilt II, Pure, Imagio, Dream / G1, myTouch 3G, Hero, HD2, and Droid Eris. That's really a full range of HTC phones, running both Android and Windows Mobile, with and without Sense / TouchFLO.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't aimed at HTC ; it 's aimed at Google .
Do n't kid yourself .
To whom , is Google paying license fees ? Wrong , it targets WinMo phones too.From Engadget : In addition , the ITC complaint lists a number of specific HTC handsets as exhibits , including the Nexus One , Touch Pro , Touch Diamond , Touch Pro2 , Tilt II , Pure , Imagio , Dream / G1 , myTouch 3G , Hero , HD2 , and Droid Eris .
That 's really a full range of HTC phones , running both Android and Windows Mobile , with and without Sense / TouchFLO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't aimed at HTC;  it's aimed at Google.
Don't kid yourself.
To whom, is Google paying license fees?Wrong, it targets WinMo phones too.From Engadget: In addition, the ITC complaint lists a number of specific HTC handsets as exhibits, including the Nexus One, Touch Pro, Touch Diamond, Touch Pro2, Tilt II, Pure, Imagio, Dream / G1, myTouch 3G, Hero, HD2, and Droid Eris.
That's really a full range of HTC phones, running both Android and Windows Mobile, with and without Sense / TouchFLO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331900</id>
	<title>Re:More Details &amp; HTC Response</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1267554240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple put out a statement before HTC was actually served, then. Suggests this is more of a PR war than anything else, that they want to reassert the iPhone OS's primacy in the public eye before this year's big Android, WinMo and Symbian handsets get going. Nothing says "their product is a knock-off" like a patent infringement suit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple put out a statement before HTC was actually served , then .
Suggests this is more of a PR war than anything else , that they want to reassert the iPhone OS 's primacy in the public eye before this year 's big Android , WinMo and Symbian handsets get going .
Nothing says " their product is a knock-off " like a patent infringement suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple put out a statement before HTC was actually served, then.
Suggests this is more of a PR war than anything else, that they want to reassert the iPhone OS's primacy in the public eye before this year's big Android, WinMo and Symbian handsets get going.
Nothing says "their product is a knock-off" like a patent infringement suit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332090</id>
	<title>As Jobs himself said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267554960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Good artists COPY.. Great artists STEAL"</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Tr0syhIIo</p><p>Guess you forgot about the good'ol times don't you steve?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Good artists COPY.. Great artists STEAL " http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = j4Tr0syhIIoGuess you forgot about the good'ol times do n't you steve ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Good artists COPY.. Great artists STEAL"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Tr0syhIIoGuess you forgot about the good'ol times don't you steve?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31340158</id>
	<title>Re:User Interface patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267548540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A car analogy from 1894 is still a car analogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A car analogy from 1894 is still a car analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A car analogy from 1894 is still a car analogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333354</id>
	<title>hypocrite, much?</title>
	<author>scratchpaper</author>
	<datestamp>1267559400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...says the man whose entire empire is based on a stolen BSD kernel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...We think competition is healthy , but competitors should create their own original technology , not steal ours .
" ...says the man whose entire empire is based on a stolen BSD kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.
" ...says the man whose entire empire is based on a stolen BSD kernel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332944</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Apple should pay their royalties first?</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1267557840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course it's aimed at Google, Google will be the death of the iPhone.  Apple can not keep up with 10+ manufacturers bringing out new and innovative hardware at a rate of a new phone or two a month.  The only thing they have now over Android is "polish".  That's going to erode over time and at that point the only reason to own an iPhone is because you don't know any better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it 's aimed at Google , Google will be the death of the iPhone .
Apple can not keep up with 10 + manufacturers bringing out new and innovative hardware at a rate of a new phone or two a month .
The only thing they have now over Android is " polish " .
That 's going to erode over time and at that point the only reason to own an iPhone is because you do n't know any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it's aimed at Google, Google will be the death of the iPhone.
Apple can not keep up with 10+ manufacturers bringing out new and innovative hardware at a rate of a new phone or two a month.
The only thing they have now over Android is "polish".
That's going to erode over time and at that point the only reason to own an iPhone is because you don't know any better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331372</id>
	<title>We think competition is healthy</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1267552260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first I wanted to laugh at this coming from Steve Jobs. Then I realized, I think that not drinking soda-pop is healthy *looks at all the cans of pop on his desk, including the opened and half drunk Coke*</p><p>OK. Yeah, we don't always do the healthy thing, even if we know what it is. I guess I can't criticize jobs here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I wanted to laugh at this coming from Steve Jobs .
Then I realized , I think that not drinking soda-pop is healthy * looks at all the cans of pop on his desk , including the opened and half drunk Coke * OK. Yeah , we do n't always do the healthy thing , even if we know what it is .
I guess I ca n't criticize jobs here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I wanted to laugh at this coming from Steve Jobs.
Then I realized, I think that not drinking soda-pop is healthy *looks at all the cans of pop on his desk, including the opened and half drunk Coke*OK. Yeah, we don't always do the healthy thing, even if we know what it is.
I guess I can't criticize jobs here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332290</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, pick on HTC...</title>
	<author>MikePikeFL</author>
	<datestamp>1267555620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering about this too. Palm has basically said in the past that they aren't worried given their extensive patent portfolio. I'm wondering how many of their touch screen patents, etc. overlap- or could be interpreted to overlap- Apple's patents in this arena. They've been at this game for a long time so maybe something from a decade or more ago could be interpreted differently to cover them now... or maybe it can't- I am DEFINITELY not a patent lawyer (but my college roommate became one so that means like absolutely nothing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering about this too .
Palm has basically said in the past that they are n't worried given their extensive patent portfolio .
I 'm wondering how many of their touch screen patents , etc .
overlap- or could be interpreted to overlap- Apple 's patents in this arena .
They 've been at this game for a long time so maybe something from a decade or more ago could be interpreted differently to cover them now... or maybe it ca n't- I am DEFINITELY not a patent lawyer ( but my college roommate became one so that means like absolutely nothing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering about this too.
Palm has basically said in the past that they aren't worried given their extensive patent portfolio.
I'm wondering how many of their touch screen patents, etc.
overlap- or could be interpreted to overlap- Apple's patents in this arena.
They've been at this game for a long time so maybe something from a decade or more ago could be interpreted differently to cover them now... or maybe it can't- I am DEFINITELY not a patent lawyer (but my college roommate became one so that means like absolutely nothing).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337050</id>
	<title>Re:User Interface patents</title>
	<author>kylant</author>
	<datestamp>1267529880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was not referring to monopoly as in exclusive right to control a technology (that's what the patent system is actually about). I meant monopoly in the sense of gaining control over a market (in this case the market of smartphones) that is actually larger than that single technology by locking in users (as illustrated with my steering wheel example).<p>
The patent system was not designed to create the latter and applying patents in this way borders on anti-competitive practices.</p><p>
In my opinion many user interface patents should not be granted in the first place as they lack the necessary degree of inventive ingenuity. They are just anti-competitive
'land grabs'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was not referring to monopoly as in exclusive right to control a technology ( that 's what the patent system is actually about ) .
I meant monopoly in the sense of gaining control over a market ( in this case the market of smartphones ) that is actually larger than that single technology by locking in users ( as illustrated with my steering wheel example ) .
The patent system was not designed to create the latter and applying patents in this way borders on anti-competitive practices .
In my opinion many user interface patents should not be granted in the first place as they lack the necessary degree of inventive ingenuity .
They are just anti-competitive 'land grabs' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was not referring to monopoly as in exclusive right to control a technology (that's what the patent system is actually about).
I meant monopoly in the sense of gaining control over a market (in this case the market of smartphones) that is actually larger than that single technology by locking in users (as illustrated with my steering wheel example).
The patent system was not designed to create the latter and applying patents in this way borders on anti-competitive practices.
In my opinion many user interface patents should not be granted in the first place as they lack the necessary degree of inventive ingenuity.
They are just anti-competitive
'land grabs'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332148</id>
	<title>Xerox Parc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267555140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So sayeth the man who stole so much from Xerox Parc.</p><p>First we kill all the lawyers...</p><p>Captcha: boxers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So sayeth the man who stole so much from Xerox Parc.First we kill all the lawyers...Captcha : boxers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So sayeth the man who stole so much from Xerox Parc.First we kill all the lawyers...Captcha: boxers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331702</id>
	<title>Good artists copy; great artists steal.</title>
	<author>mamer-retrogamer</author>
	<datestamp>1267553520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess Steve Jobs has had a change of heart on one his most used phrases? (See <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=steve+jobs+artists+steal" title="google.com">Steve Jobs "artists steal" quote)</a> [google.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess Steve Jobs has had a change of heart on one his most used phrases ?
( See Steve Jobs " artists steal " quote ) [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess Steve Jobs has had a change of heart on one his most used phrases?
(See Steve Jobs "artists steal" quote) [google.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332000</id>
	<title>Re:Multi-touch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267554660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's kinda like patenting keyboard layouts</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's kinda like patenting keyboard layouts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's kinda like patenting keyboard layouts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332182</id>
	<title>Looks like they had enough of SenseUI</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1267555260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look, HTC builds H/W, they stick anything Linux or WinMo underneath and then slap a modular UI ontop (SenseUI)-- the UI is very portable and can mimic a lot. It's a great design-concept IMHO.
<br>
<br>
It's also becoming the best UI out there and seriously threatening Apple's bread-n-butter: its heavily advertised, "innovative" UI design (for the ipXXX's).
<br>
<br>
For one, this is a great marketing ploy by Apple to put a stick in the ground that <i>they practically invented</i> the mobile device UI (which it's "mainstream" customers <b>like</b> as it's branding and makes them 'feel' good buying an Apple product). And two, as SenseUI evolves, its design and Android's dev model allow it to evolve <b>much faster</b> than the iPhone UI. And we all know 2 independent dev teams will likely converge/create similar features overtime (think Gnome vs. KDE), since the user cases are the same! Hence, one can conclude HTC/SenseUI can claim [similar] newer UI features since they can release faster. Basically, <b>Apple can't keep up</b>. Hence suing will slow HTC down so Apple can release UI features <b>before</b> HTC does and claim it's a Apple "innovation".
<br>
<br>
Let's face it, patents <b>aren't for protection anymore</b>, they're tools for marketing strategy and engineering time-to-market, i.e. in other words, market control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , HTC builds H/W , they stick anything Linux or WinMo underneath and then slap a modular UI ontop ( SenseUI ) -- the UI is very portable and can mimic a lot .
It 's a great design-concept IMHO .
It 's also becoming the best UI out there and seriously threatening Apple 's bread-n-butter : its heavily advertised , " innovative " UI design ( for the ipXXX 's ) .
For one , this is a great marketing ploy by Apple to put a stick in the ground that they practically invented the mobile device UI ( which it 's " mainstream " customers like as it 's branding and makes them 'feel ' good buying an Apple product ) .
And two , as SenseUI evolves , its design and Android 's dev model allow it to evolve much faster than the iPhone UI .
And we all know 2 independent dev teams will likely converge/create similar features overtime ( think Gnome vs. KDE ) , since the user cases are the same !
Hence , one can conclude HTC/SenseUI can claim [ similar ] newer UI features since they can release faster .
Basically , Apple ca n't keep up .
Hence suing will slow HTC down so Apple can release UI features before HTC does and claim it 's a Apple " innovation " .
Let 's face it , patents are n't for protection anymore , they 're tools for marketing strategy and engineering time-to-market , i.e .
in other words , market control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, HTC builds H/W, they stick anything Linux or WinMo underneath and then slap a modular UI ontop (SenseUI)-- the UI is very portable and can mimic a lot.
It's a great design-concept IMHO.
It's also becoming the best UI out there and seriously threatening Apple's bread-n-butter: its heavily advertised, "innovative" UI design (for the ipXXX's).
For one, this is a great marketing ploy by Apple to put a stick in the ground that they practically invented the mobile device UI (which it's "mainstream" customers like as it's branding and makes them 'feel' good buying an Apple product).
And two, as SenseUI evolves, its design and Android's dev model allow it to evolve much faster than the iPhone UI.
And we all know 2 independent dev teams will likely converge/create similar features overtime (think Gnome vs. KDE), since the user cases are the same!
Hence, one can conclude HTC/SenseUI can claim [similar] newer UI features since they can release faster.
Basically, Apple can't keep up.
Hence suing will slow HTC down so Apple can release UI features before HTC does and claim it's a Apple "innovation".
Let's face it, patents aren't for protection anymore, they're tools for marketing strategy and engineering time-to-market, i.e.
in other words, market control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331364</id>
	<title>Post is BS</title>
	<author>MikeMo</author>
	<datestamp>1267552200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The lawsuit is not "similar to Microsoft's" patents over Linux functionality.  They're over a competitor using patented technology.  The post immediately denigrates the validity of the litigation by linking it to something that it is not.  Why editorialize?  Why can't the lawsuit just be about patent infringement instead of "scaring the industry"??</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lawsuit is not " similar to Microsoft 's " patents over Linux functionality .
They 're over a competitor using patented technology .
The post immediately denigrates the validity of the litigation by linking it to something that it is not .
Why editorialize ?
Why ca n't the lawsuit just be about patent infringement instead of " scaring the industry " ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lawsuit is not "similar to Microsoft's" patents over Linux functionality.
They're over a competitor using patented technology.
The post immediately denigrates the validity of the litigation by linking it to something that it is not.
Why editorialize?
Why can't the lawsuit just be about patent infringement instead of "scaring the industry"?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331418</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe Apple should pay their royalties first?</title>
	<author>idiotnot</author>
	<datestamp>1267552380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Maybe Apple should pay Nokia's patent royalties first before they go bullying others? </i></p><p>Is that still in litigation?</p><p><i>Too bad the mobile phone industry is a small one, everyone of the existing players cross-license between each one and ass behaving Apple is in serious trouble if the other companies stop licensing their technology.</i></p><p>This isn't aimed at HTC;  it's aimed at Google.  Don't kid yourself.  To whom, is Google paying license fees?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Apple should pay Nokia 's patent royalties first before they go bullying others ?
Is that still in litigation ? Too bad the mobile phone industry is a small one , everyone of the existing players cross-license between each one and ass behaving Apple is in serious trouble if the other companies stop licensing their technology.This is n't aimed at HTC ; it 's aimed at Google .
Do n't kid yourself .
To whom , is Google paying license fees ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Apple should pay Nokia's patent royalties first before they go bullying others?
Is that still in litigation?Too bad the mobile phone industry is a small one, everyone of the existing players cross-license between each one and ass behaving Apple is in serious trouble if the other companies stop licensing their technology.This isn't aimed at HTC;  it's aimed at Google.
Don't kid yourself.
To whom, is Google paying license fees?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331614</id>
	<title>Re:I actually don't see a problem here...</title>
	<author>Mulder3</author>
	<datestamp>1267553160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Without diving into the specifics, I don't see a problem here. The iPhone was hugely innovative, and there was a lot there that was genuinely new. While in general I'm not a big fan of patents (often the 'innovations' covered are trivial), in this case I think that Apple sort of deserves to profit from their R&amp;D. Clearly, some of the HTC phones are knockoffs.</i> <br> <br>
Well, i see a BIG problem... Apple's cell phone patent portfolio is very small, the only thing they have is some UI/multitouch patents.
On the other hand, companies like Nokia-Siemens, Alcatel-Lucent, Ericcson and Huawei have a huge amount of cellphone patents, if Apple doesn't cross-license its tech, they will be screwed for sure... Also, i bet HTC has more patents than Apple...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without diving into the specifics , I do n't see a problem here .
The iPhone was hugely innovative , and there was a lot there that was genuinely new .
While in general I 'm not a big fan of patents ( often the 'innovations ' covered are trivial ) , in this case I think that Apple sort of deserves to profit from their R&amp;D .
Clearly , some of the HTC phones are knockoffs .
Well , i see a BIG problem... Apple 's cell phone patent portfolio is very small , the only thing they have is some UI/multitouch patents .
On the other hand , companies like Nokia-Siemens , Alcatel-Lucent , Ericcson and Huawei have a huge amount of cellphone patents , if Apple does n't cross-license its tech , they will be screwed for sure... Also , i bet HTC has more patents than Apple.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without diving into the specifics, I don't see a problem here.
The iPhone was hugely innovative, and there was a lot there that was genuinely new.
While in general I'm not a big fan of patents (often the 'innovations' covered are trivial), in this case I think that Apple sort of deserves to profit from their R&amp;D.
Clearly, some of the HTC phones are knockoffs.
Well, i see a BIG problem... Apple's cell phone patent portfolio is very small, the only thing they have is some UI/multitouch patents.
On the other hand, companies like Nokia-Siemens, Alcatel-Lucent, Ericcson and Huawei have a huge amount of cellphone patents, if Apple doesn't cross-license its tech, they will be screwed for sure... Also, i bet HTC has more patents than Apple...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331850</id>
	<title>Yeah, pick on HTC...</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1267554000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see you pick on RIM or Palm, Apple.</p><p>Go ahead.  Then watch your ass being handed to you, afterward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see you pick on RIM or Palm , Apple.Go ahead .
Then watch your ass being handed to you , afterward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see you pick on RIM or Palm, Apple.Go ahead.
Then watch your ass being handed to you, afterward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31338012</id>
	<title>Their new ad slogan.....</title>
	<author>ZosX</author>
	<datestamp>1267533900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There's a patent for that."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There 's a patent for that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There's a patent for that.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332214</id>
	<title>Re:Multi-touch</title>
	<author>hoooocheymomma</author>
	<datestamp>1267555380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Pinch to Zoom" is a gesture. Why should it be possible to patent a hard-coded gesture? People have been writing gesture-based solutions for EVER. On a touch screen, all you have are gestures made up of touching and dragging. Does it make much sense to force users to use different gestures on different devices?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pinch to Zoom " is a gesture .
Why should it be possible to patent a hard-coded gesture ?
People have been writing gesture-based solutions for EVER .
On a touch screen , all you have are gestures made up of touching and dragging .
Does it make much sense to force users to use different gestures on different devices ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pinch to Zoom" is a gesture.
Why should it be possible to patent a hard-coded gesture?
People have been writing gesture-based solutions for EVER.
On a touch screen, all you have are gestures made up of touching and dragging.
Does it make much sense to force users to use different gestures on different devices?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354</id>
	<title>I actually don't see a problem here...</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1267552140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without diving into the specifics, I don't see a problem here.  The iPhone was <b>hugely</b> innovative, and there was a lot there that was genuinely new.  While in general I'm not a big fan of patents (often the 'innovations' covered are trivial), in this case I think that Apple sort of deserves to profit from their R&amp;D.  Clearly, some of the HTC phones are knockoffs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without diving into the specifics , I do n't see a problem here .
The iPhone was hugely innovative , and there was a lot there that was genuinely new .
While in general I 'm not a big fan of patents ( often the 'innovations ' covered are trivial ) , in this case I think that Apple sort of deserves to profit from their R&amp;D .
Clearly , some of the HTC phones are knockoffs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without diving into the specifics, I don't see a problem here.
The iPhone was hugely innovative, and there was a lot there that was genuinely new.
While in general I'm not a big fan of patents (often the 'innovations' covered are trivial), in this case I think that Apple sort of deserves to profit from their R&amp;D.
Clearly, some of the HTC phones are knockoffs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334290</id>
	<title>If you cannot compete</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267562640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technologically...<br>you start to sue...</p><p>Apple has reached an absolutely new low, well it has been there before when they sued left and right companies for technology they themselves copied from Xerox...</p><p>Instead of suing they should start to get the iPhone right, how about a decent JavaVM or Flash..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technologically...you start to sue...Apple has reached an absolutely new low , well it has been there before when they sued left and right companies for technology they themselves copied from Xerox...Instead of suing they should start to get the iPhone right , how about a decent JavaVM or Flash. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technologically...you start to sue...Apple has reached an absolutely new low, well it has been there before when they sued left and right companies for technology they themselves copied from Xerox...Instead of suing they should start to get the iPhone right, how about a decent JavaVM or Flash..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333366</id>
	<title>Re:User Interface patents</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1267559460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, and they already tried suing competitors over software <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_Computer,\_Inc.\_v.\_Microsoft\_Corporation" title="wikipedia.org">UI look and feel</a> [wikipedia.org] similarities 16 years ago. They lost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and they already tried suing competitors over software UI look and feel [ wikipedia.org ] similarities 16 years ago .
They lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and they already tried suing competitors over software UI look and feel [wikipedia.org] similarities 16 years ago.
They lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334220</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that...</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1267562400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent is bunk because Xerox invented it and pinch and zoom has been used on phones before Apple..<br>Btw. half of the OO patents apple has noted on the HTC sue list are design patterns from the gang of four books. They even patented the observer pattern (object oriented event system), so the entire patent is bogus, but as long as the USPTO is handing out patents like free beer this wont stop!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent is bunk because Xerox invented it and pinch and zoom has been used on phones before Apple..Btw .
half of the OO patents apple has noted on the HTC sue list are design patterns from the gang of four books .
They even patented the observer pattern ( object oriented event system ) , so the entire patent is bogus , but as long as the USPTO is handing out patents like free beer this wont stop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent is bunk because Xerox invented it and pinch and zoom has been used on phones before Apple..Btw.
half of the OO patents apple has noted on the HTC sue list are design patterns from the gang of four books.
They even patented the observer pattern (object oriented event system), so the entire patent is bogus, but as long as the USPTO is handing out patents like free beer this wont stop!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332016</id>
	<title>Why is this shit patentable?</title>
	<author>Entropius</author>
	<datestamp>1267554720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a patent for screen rotation and scaling? That's nuts.</p><p>Patented inventions are supposed to be novel and require some genuine inspiration, not something that's obvious. The idea that you can use orientation sensors and linear transforms to make a picture that's always right-side-up and that's different sizes is laughable -- as soon as you decide you want to do it, the way to do it is obvious. Just because someone hasn't done it before doesn't mean that it required any patent-worthy cleverness to do it.</p><p>Patents are supposed to encourage invention and innovation by giving people who invent clever novel things a way to profit from them, not a way for some business to lock out competition. The screen-pinch-to-scale thing? Again, pretty obvious. (My eeepc has that on the touchpad, actually.)</p><p>As an example, suppose you wanted to make a mouse that could sense rotation/twist as well as translation. Any idiot would realize that an easy way to do this is to put <i>two</i> optical sensors (or balls) on it, one on each side, and do some simple math. Something like this shouldn't be patentable.</p><p>One rather ridiculous example is the Four Thirds imaging system. Olympus decided they'd like to use a different size CCD than other camera makers to make a digital SLR, and they actually patented it! They decided what size sensor, what size lens mount, what register distance, etc. to use, and then patented these engineering choices. There's nothing inherently different about the Four Thirds SLR's than any other digital SLR -- they work in the ordinary bog-standard way. (Patent absurdity aside, mine does take nice pictures.)</p><p>Patents need to be restricted to real inventions, not simple choices that anybody with a bachelor's degree could have come up with when faced by a problem. Fix this and you fix a lot of the problems with patent trolling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a patent for screen rotation and scaling ?
That 's nuts.Patented inventions are supposed to be novel and require some genuine inspiration , not something that 's obvious .
The idea that you can use orientation sensors and linear transforms to make a picture that 's always right-side-up and that 's different sizes is laughable -- as soon as you decide you want to do it , the way to do it is obvious .
Just because someone has n't done it before does n't mean that it required any patent-worthy cleverness to do it.Patents are supposed to encourage invention and innovation by giving people who invent clever novel things a way to profit from them , not a way for some business to lock out competition .
The screen-pinch-to-scale thing ?
Again , pretty obvious .
( My eeepc has that on the touchpad , actually .
) As an example , suppose you wanted to make a mouse that could sense rotation/twist as well as translation .
Any idiot would realize that an easy way to do this is to put two optical sensors ( or balls ) on it , one on each side , and do some simple math .
Something like this should n't be patentable.One rather ridiculous example is the Four Thirds imaging system .
Olympus decided they 'd like to use a different size CCD than other camera makers to make a digital SLR , and they actually patented it !
They decided what size sensor , what size lens mount , what register distance , etc .
to use , and then patented these engineering choices .
There 's nothing inherently different about the Four Thirds SLR 's than any other digital SLR -- they work in the ordinary bog-standard way .
( Patent absurdity aside , mine does take nice pictures .
) Patents need to be restricted to real inventions , not simple choices that anybody with a bachelor 's degree could have come up with when faced by a problem .
Fix this and you fix a lot of the problems with patent trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a patent for screen rotation and scaling?
That's nuts.Patented inventions are supposed to be novel and require some genuine inspiration, not something that's obvious.
The idea that you can use orientation sensors and linear transforms to make a picture that's always right-side-up and that's different sizes is laughable -- as soon as you decide you want to do it, the way to do it is obvious.
Just because someone hasn't done it before doesn't mean that it required any patent-worthy cleverness to do it.Patents are supposed to encourage invention and innovation by giving people who invent clever novel things a way to profit from them, not a way for some business to lock out competition.
The screen-pinch-to-scale thing?
Again, pretty obvious.
(My eeepc has that on the touchpad, actually.
)As an example, suppose you wanted to make a mouse that could sense rotation/twist as well as translation.
Any idiot would realize that an easy way to do this is to put two optical sensors (or balls) on it, one on each side, and do some simple math.
Something like this shouldn't be patentable.One rather ridiculous example is the Four Thirds imaging system.
Olympus decided they'd like to use a different size CCD than other camera makers to make a digital SLR, and they actually patented it!
They decided what size sensor, what size lens mount, what register distance, etc.
to use, and then patented these engineering choices.
There's nothing inherently different about the Four Thirds SLR's than any other digital SLR -- they work in the ordinary bog-standard way.
(Patent absurdity aside, mine does take nice pictures.
)Patents need to be restricted to real inventions, not simple choices that anybody with a bachelor's degree could have come up with when faced by a problem.
Fix this and you fix a lot of the problems with patent trolling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466</id>
	<title>Apple is the new Microsoft</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1267552620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember this day. This day marks the beginning of Apple's decline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember this day .
This day marks the beginning of Apple 's decline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember this day.
This day marks the beginning of Apple's decline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333702</id>
	<title>Re:Xerox would like a word</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1267560720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr russlar,</p><p>I have history on the phone for you, saying something about accuracy....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr russlar,I have history on the phone for you , saying something about accuracy... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr russlar,I have history on the phone for you, saying something about accuracy....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331808</id>
	<title>Good luck with that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267553940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of these things they claim to 'invent' I have seen long before they got patents on them.<br>Considering Apple is a new player on the field they should really keep their mouth shut... they are fooling with companies that have 10,15 and 20 years on the playing field.</p><p>Now I have to hear the apple drones tell me that I am holding a 'stolen' invention (my Nexus one)<br>I did wonder why Google enabled the multi-touch thing (I don't use it)<br>Is it because they know the patent is bunk and were hoping to get sued?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of these things they claim to 'invent ' I have seen long before they got patents on them.Considering Apple is a new player on the field they should really keep their mouth shut... they are fooling with companies that have 10,15 and 20 years on the playing field.Now I have to hear the apple drones tell me that I am holding a 'stolen ' invention ( my Nexus one ) I did wonder why Google enabled the multi-touch thing ( I do n't use it ) Is it because they know the patent is bunk and were hoping to get sued ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of these things they claim to 'invent' I have seen long before they got patents on them.Considering Apple is a new player on the field they should really keep their mouth shut... they are fooling with companies that have 10,15 and 20 years on the playing field.Now I have to hear the apple drones tell me that I am holding a 'stolen' invention (my Nexus one)I did wonder why Google enabled the multi-touch thing (I don't use it)Is it because they know the patent is bunk and were hoping to get sued?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31347350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31336350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31488938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31340158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31340180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31342786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31356426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31342258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31341084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31340186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31336804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_1557212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31342258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31341084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31342786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31340180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31340158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31336804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31340186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332944
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31336350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31356426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31337428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31488938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31334220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31332806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31333456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_1557212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31331810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31335880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_1557212.31347350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
