<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_03_142240</id>
	<title>Google, Yahoo!, Apple Targeted In DoJ Antitrust Probe</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244041380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post:
<i>"The Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether some of the nation's largest technology companies violated antitrust laws by negotiating the recruiting and hiring of one another's employees, according to two sources with knowledge of the review. The review, which is said to be in its preliminary stages, is focused on Google; its competitor Yahoo; Apple; and the biotech firm Genentech, among others, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The sources said the review includes other tech companies and is 'industry-wide.' By <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060203412.html">agreeing not to hire away top talent</a>, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly, antitrust experts said. ... Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post : " The Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether some of the nation 's largest technology companies violated antitrust laws by negotiating the recruiting and hiring of one another 's employees , according to two sources with knowledge of the review .
The review , which is said to be in its preliminary stages , is focused on Google ; its competitor Yahoo ; Apple ; and the biotech firm Genentech , among others , according to the sources , who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing .
The sources said the review includes other tech companies and is 'industry-wide .
' By agreeing not to hire away top talent , the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly , antitrust experts said .
... Obama 's antitrust chief at the Justice Department , Christine Varney , has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post:
"The Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether some of the nation's largest technology companies violated antitrust laws by negotiating the recruiting and hiring of one another's employees, according to two sources with knowledge of the review.
The review, which is said to be in its preliminary stages, is focused on Google; its competitor Yahoo; Apple; and the biotech firm Genentech, among others, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
The sources said the review includes other tech companies and is 'industry-wide.
' By agreeing not to hire away top talent, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly, antitrust experts said.
... Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197187</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1244049840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An industry wide probe that calls out these specific companies.  Odd that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An industry wide probe that calls out these specific companies .
Odd that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An industry wide probe that calls out these specific companies.
Odd that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197615</id>
	<title>It's actually worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244051460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...MS doesn't dictate whose machine I can run their OS on (even though I have no Windows computers art home).</p></div><p>Instead, they pressure the manufacturers into excluding competitor operating systems on computers they deem to be their target market.  The "Windows tax" is collected before you get the machine, so you might as well accept the pre-installed product and use it -- like it or not.</p><p>I fail to see how that is better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...MS does n't dictate whose machine I can run their OS on ( even though I have no Windows computers art home ) .Instead , they pressure the manufacturers into excluding competitor operating systems on computers they deem to be their target market .
The " Windows tax " is collected before you get the machine , so you might as well accept the pre-installed product and use it -- like it or not.I fail to see how that is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...MS doesn't dictate whose machine I can run their OS on (even though I have no Windows computers art home).Instead, they pressure the manufacturers into excluding competitor operating systems on computers they deem to be their target market.
The "Windows tax" is collected before you get the machine, so you might as well accept the pre-installed product and use it -- like it or not.I fail to see how that is better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196265</id>
	<title>Apparently the Obama administration doesn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244045940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would you have voted for BHO if you knew he was going to make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court who is pro-RIAA and that under BHO's administration we'd see Google, Apple come under major Antitrust scrutiny (but not Microsoft)? What are your thoughts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you have voted for BHO if you knew he was going to make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court who is pro-RIAA and that under BHO 's administration we 'd see Google , Apple come under major Antitrust scrutiny ( but not Microsoft ) ?
What are your thoughts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you have voted for BHO if you knew he was going to make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court who is pro-RIAA and that under BHO's administration we'd see Google, Apple come under major Antitrust scrutiny (but not Microsoft)?
What are your thoughts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28200229</id>
	<title>AMEN!</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1244019600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outlaw non-competes &amp; these deals!  It'll ultimately raise all tech workers salaries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outlaw non-competes &amp; these deals !
It 'll ultimately raise all tech workers salaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outlaw non-competes &amp; these deals!
It'll ultimately raise all tech workers salaries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197831</id>
	<title>Genentech</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1244052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does Peter Gibbons still work at Genentech?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Peter Gibbons still work at Genentech ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Peter Gibbons still work at Genentech?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28198023</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently the Obama administration doesn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244052960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since he is, in effect, the CEO of both GM and Chrysler, Obama is the biggest antitrust violator of all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since he is , in effect , the CEO of both GM and Chrysler , Obama is the biggest antitrust violator of all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since he is, in effect, the CEO of both GM and Chrysler, Obama is the biggest antitrust violator of all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197559</id>
	<title>Re:No-hire pact?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1244051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, because these companies are the only places the employee can work?  You realize that every employee at these companies has a comparable job in a field completely unrelated to silicon valley.  Contrary to popular belief, Google, MS, and Apple are not the only companies who need network admins, systems engineers, developers and everything else.  Technology employees are used in EVERY business, so unless you're saying that every company in America agreed to not hire someone elses employee while they were still employeed then this whole thing is pointless.</p><p>You only get part of the choice in where you work, the company gets to make a choice too.  If they choose to not steal employees, good for them.  Just because you want to play the companies against each other to get paid more than you are worth doesn't mean they have to play your retarded game.</p><p>You do not have a 'right' to work anywhere, regardless of what you think.  Working is a privilege, once you wrap your thick skull around that you'll be a lot better off in life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , because these companies are the only places the employee can work ?
You realize that every employee at these companies has a comparable job in a field completely unrelated to silicon valley .
Contrary to popular belief , Google , MS , and Apple are not the only companies who need network admins , systems engineers , developers and everything else .
Technology employees are used in EVERY business , so unless you 're saying that every company in America agreed to not hire someone elses employee while they were still employeed then this whole thing is pointless.You only get part of the choice in where you work , the company gets to make a choice too .
If they choose to not steal employees , good for them .
Just because you want to play the companies against each other to get paid more than you are worth does n't mean they have to play your retarded game.You do not have a 'right ' to work anywhere , regardless of what you think .
Working is a privilege , once you wrap your thick skull around that you 'll be a lot better off in life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, because these companies are the only places the employee can work?
You realize that every employee at these companies has a comparable job in a field completely unrelated to silicon valley.
Contrary to popular belief, Google, MS, and Apple are not the only companies who need network admins, systems engineers, developers and everything else.
Technology employees are used in EVERY business, so unless you're saying that every company in America agreed to not hire someone elses employee while they were still employeed then this whole thing is pointless.You only get part of the choice in where you work, the company gets to make a choice too.
If they choose to not steal employees, good for them.
Just because you want to play the companies against each other to get paid more than you are worth doesn't mean they have to play your retarded game.You do not have a 'right' to work anywhere, regardless of what you think.
Working is a privilege, once you wrap your thick skull around that you'll be a lot better off in life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28202651</id>
	<title>This is crap...</title>
	<author>Alascom</author>
	<datestamp>1244028480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work at Google, and in the past 6 months I've received job offers from both Yahoo! and Apple.  Its not much of a secret agreement if all the companies are clearly violating it by trying to recruit out from under the others.</p><p>More FUD, probably somehow initiated by Microsoft, attacking and smearing its competitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work at Google , and in the past 6 months I 've received job offers from both Yahoo !
and Apple .
Its not much of a secret agreement if all the companies are clearly violating it by trying to recruit out from under the others.More FUD , probably somehow initiated by Microsoft , attacking and smearing its competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work at Google, and in the past 6 months I've received job offers from both Yahoo!
and Apple.
Its not much of a secret agreement if all the companies are clearly violating it by trying to recruit out from under the others.More FUD, probably somehow initiated by Microsoft, attacking and smearing its competitors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196759</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently the Obama administration doesn't</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1244048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Would you have voted for BHO if you knew he was going to make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court who is pro-RIAA and that under BHO's administration we'd see Google, Apple come under major Antitrust scrutiny (but not Microsoft)? What are your thoughts?</i>
<br>
<br>
Yes, yes I would.  For one thing, in the world of things that truly matter, the RIAA is way down on the list.  And as someone else pointed out, one pro-RIAA ruling during a judicial lifetime doesn't mean that much.  As for the monopoly thing, if Google and Apple are breaking the law, they should be treated accordingly.  Microsoft was already convicted of being a monopoly, and they were punishment.  The punishment was completely inadequate and driven by right-wing free-market fanatics in the Bush government, but in the end that was the punishment that was levied.  Unless Microsoft is doing something new that is anti-competitive, they are safe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you have voted for BHO if you knew he was going to make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court who is pro-RIAA and that under BHO 's administration we 'd see Google , Apple come under major Antitrust scrutiny ( but not Microsoft ) ?
What are your thoughts ?
Yes , yes I would .
For one thing , in the world of things that truly matter , the RIAA is way down on the list .
And as someone else pointed out , one pro-RIAA ruling during a judicial lifetime does n't mean that much .
As for the monopoly thing , if Google and Apple are breaking the law , they should be treated accordingly .
Microsoft was already convicted of being a monopoly , and they were punishment .
The punishment was completely inadequate and driven by right-wing free-market fanatics in the Bush government , but in the end that was the punishment that was levied .
Unless Microsoft is doing something new that is anti-competitive , they are safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you have voted for BHO if you knew he was going to make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court who is pro-RIAA and that under BHO's administration we'd see Google, Apple come under major Antitrust scrutiny (but not Microsoft)?
What are your thoughts?
Yes, yes I would.
For one thing, in the world of things that truly matter, the RIAA is way down on the list.
And as someone else pointed out, one pro-RIAA ruling during a judicial lifetime doesn't mean that much.
As for the monopoly thing, if Google and Apple are breaking the law, they should be treated accordingly.
Microsoft was already convicted of being a monopoly, and they were punishment.
The punishment was completely inadequate and driven by right-wing free-market fanatics in the Bush government, but in the end that was the punishment that was levied.
Unless Microsoft is doing something new that is anti-competitive, they are safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197201</id>
	<title>Re:antitrust, et al.</title>
	<author>Pollardito</author>
	<datestamp>1244049900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's certainly bad for the employees who may not get paid as much as they would if there wasn't such an agreement, because they've removed an entire source of demand.   But like someone else said it basically means that when Google or Yahoo need more employees that have experience working in their field they have to get them from other competitors who aren't part of the agreement, therefore the companies in the agreement make each other stronger by strangling the rest of the field.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's certainly bad for the employees who may not get paid as much as they would if there was n't such an agreement , because they 've removed an entire source of demand .
But like someone else said it basically means that when Google or Yahoo need more employees that have experience working in their field they have to get them from other competitors who are n't part of the agreement , therefore the companies in the agreement make each other stronger by strangling the rest of the field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's certainly bad for the employees who may not get paid as much as they would if there wasn't such an agreement, because they've removed an entire source of demand.
But like someone else said it basically means that when Google or Yahoo need more employees that have experience working in their field they have to get them from other competitors who aren't part of the agreement, therefore the companies in the agreement make each other stronger by strangling the rest of the field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196043</id>
	<title>After the probe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244045100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their anuses look like <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">this</a> [goatse.fr].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their anuses look like this [ goatse.fr ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their anuses look like this [goatse.fr].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197373</id>
	<title>It's monopsony by collusion</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1244050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's an illegal restraint of trade under US antitrust law. It's not "monopoly", which is sell-side, it's "monopsony", which is buy-side.
</p><p>
Farmers classically face monopsony situations.  This was much worse when most farm products moved only by rail.  When there was only one buyer with a rail loading facility in an area, farmers were really screwed.  That's why there are so many farmer's cooperatives in the US, and USDA efforts to control monopsonies.  For what it was like before that, see <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/8diwt10.txt" title="gutenberg.org">"A Deal In Wheat"</a> [gutenberg.org], from 1903.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an illegal restraint of trade under US antitrust law .
It 's not " monopoly " , which is sell-side , it 's " monopsony " , which is buy-side .
Farmers classically face monopsony situations .
This was much worse when most farm products moved only by rail .
When there was only one buyer with a rail loading facility in an area , farmers were really screwed .
That 's why there are so many farmer 's cooperatives in the US , and USDA efforts to control monopsonies .
For what it was like before that , see " A Deal In Wheat " [ gutenberg.org ] , from 1903 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's an illegal restraint of trade under US antitrust law.
It's not "monopoly", which is sell-side, it's "monopsony", which is buy-side.
Farmers classically face monopsony situations.
This was much worse when most farm products moved only by rail.
When there was only one buyer with a rail loading facility in an area, farmers were really screwed.
That's why there are so many farmer's cooperatives in the US, and USDA efforts to control monopsonies.
For what it was like before that, see "A Deal In Wheat" [gutenberg.org], from 1903.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197705</id>
	<title>What was that sucking sound?</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1244051820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sound of Slashdotters' infinitely broad universe of "special rules" for monopolies collapsing as anti-MS fans realize it could apply to Apple, Google, and Yahoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sound of Slashdotters ' infinitely broad universe of " special rules " for monopolies collapsing as anti-MS fans realize it could apply to Apple , Google , and Yahoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sound of Slashdotters' infinitely broad universe of "special rules" for monopolies collapsing as anti-MS fans realize it could apply to Apple, Google, and Yahoo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197803</id>
	<title>Christine Varney needs a history lesson</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1244052120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the technology business, the guy with the money buys up the talent to kill his competition.  It was that way before IBM displaced Rand McNally.  Microsoft turned it into a sledgehammer.  Google headed down that path.  Yahoo! said "what up with do no evil beothes?".  So, folks made a pact of sorts not to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the technology business , the guy with the money buys up the talent to kill his competition .
It was that way before IBM displaced Rand McNally .
Microsoft turned it into a sledgehammer .
Google headed down that path .
Yahoo ! said " what up with do no evil beothes ? " .
So , folks made a pact of sorts not to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the technology business, the guy with the money buys up the talent to kill his competition.
It was that way before IBM displaced Rand McNally.
Microsoft turned it into a sledgehammer.
Google headed down that path.
Yahoo! said "what up with do no evil beothes?".
So, folks made a pact of sorts not to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196281</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244046000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to drive a Hyundai Sonata. Whenever I took it out, I would get stares because the heap would lay down a huge black cloud of exhaust when I pressed the gas. I would occasionally think about getting it fixed, but never really got <a href="http://www.myrtlewoodgallery.com/get\_a\_round\_tuit.htm" title="myrtlewoodgallery.com" rel="nofollow">around to it</a> [myrtlewoodgallery.com]. Then one day I was t-boned at an intersection. The car was totaled.</p><p>In the business world, things are much the same way. Collision is just as bad as a monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to drive a Hyundai Sonata .
Whenever I took it out , I would get stares because the heap would lay down a huge black cloud of exhaust when I pressed the gas .
I would occasionally think about getting it fixed , but never really got around to it [ myrtlewoodgallery.com ] .
Then one day I was t-boned at an intersection .
The car was totaled.In the business world , things are much the same way .
Collision is just as bad as a monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to drive a Hyundai Sonata.
Whenever I took it out, I would get stares because the heap would lay down a huge black cloud of exhaust when I pressed the gas.
I would occasionally think about getting it fixed, but never really got around to it [myrtlewoodgallery.com].
Then one day I was t-boned at an intersection.
The car was totaled.In the business world, things are much the same way.
Collision is just as bad as a monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197749</id>
	<title>Re:They have money</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1244051940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even though I own multiple Apple products I would rather see DOJ bust Apple's balls than MS.</p></div><p>Right, so the monopoly abuse in the desktop market that they got convicted of just stopped as soon as the Bush Administration DoJ let them off scot free, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though I own multiple Apple products I would rather see DOJ bust Apple 's balls than MS.Right , so the monopoly abuse in the desktop market that they got convicted of just stopped as soon as the Bush Administration DoJ let them off scot free , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though I own multiple Apple products I would rather see DOJ bust Apple's balls than MS.Right, so the monopoly abuse in the desktop market that they got convicted of just stopped as soon as the Bush Administration DoJ let them off scot free, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197301</id>
	<title>Vague laws gives government too much power</title>
	<author>syncopated</author>
	<datestamp>1244050260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Government anti-trust law action against companies purportedly level the playing field and empowers everyone to compete equally, giving more power to consumers.  However, the anti-trust laws are vague and it is hard to tell when a company has violated them.  Thus, the government itself gets broad powers to interpret the laws.  If the government were really interested in leveling the playing field and empowering many industry players and consumers, instead of itself, it would do something to make those laws clearer.  By maintaining vague laws, the government keeps for itself the monopoly to rule on a case-by-case basis what's allowed and what's not.  The government itself is guilty of violating the principles of the anti-trust laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government anti-trust law action against companies purportedly level the playing field and empowers everyone to compete equally , giving more power to consumers .
However , the anti-trust laws are vague and it is hard to tell when a company has violated them .
Thus , the government itself gets broad powers to interpret the laws .
If the government were really interested in leveling the playing field and empowering many industry players and consumers , instead of itself , it would do something to make those laws clearer .
By maintaining vague laws , the government keeps for itself the monopoly to rule on a case-by-case basis what 's allowed and what 's not .
The government itself is guilty of violating the principles of the anti-trust laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government anti-trust law action against companies purportedly level the playing field and empowers everyone to compete equally, giving more power to consumers.
However, the anti-trust laws are vague and it is hard to tell when a company has violated them.
Thus, the government itself gets broad powers to interpret the laws.
If the government were really interested in leveling the playing field and empowering many industry players and consumers, instead of itself, it would do something to make those laws clearer.
By maintaining vague laws, the government keeps for itself the monopoly to rule on a case-by-case basis what's allowed and what's not.
The government itself is guilty of violating the principles of the anti-trust laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196315</id>
	<title>Beware the red herring</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1244046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers."</p><p>They are investigating collusion in the <i>labor</i> market - in this case, the companies themselves are the consumer, and job seekers provide the service. <b>But this has nothing to do with cutting out competitors and hurting consumers</b>.  What they are doing is collusion in a market which, though probably illegal, keeps costs down, not up.</p><p>"look at the network effects of high-tech companies and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... grasp on markets<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." is shorthand for increased government regulation, whether warranted or not.  What will happen when they decide to investigate the companies that supply toilets, and find out that "only" 10 companies "dominate" the market?  They may not be colluding, but OBVIOUSLY such a small number of companies id bad for the market, and hence requires regulation of their pricing to protect the consumer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Obama 's antitrust chief at the Justice Department , Christine Varney , has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers .
" They are investigating collusion in the labor market - in this case , the companies themselves are the consumer , and job seekers provide the service .
But this has nothing to do with cutting out competitors and hurting consumers .
What they are doing is collusion in a market which , though probably illegal , keeps costs down , not up .
" look at the network effects of high-tech companies and ... grasp on markets ... " is shorthand for increased government regulation , whether warranted or not .
What will happen when they decide to investigate the companies that supply toilets , and find out that " only " 10 companies " dominate " the market ?
They may not be colluding , but OBVIOUSLY such a small number of companies id bad for the market , and hence requires regulation of their pricing to protect the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers.
"They are investigating collusion in the labor market - in this case, the companies themselves are the consumer, and job seekers provide the service.
But this has nothing to do with cutting out competitors and hurting consumers.
What they are doing is collusion in a market which, though probably illegal, keeps costs down, not up.
"look at the network effects of high-tech companies and ... grasp on markets ..." is shorthand for increased government regulation, whether warranted or not.
What will happen when they decide to investigate the companies that supply toilets, and find out that "only" 10 companies "dominate" the market?
They may not be colluding, but OBVIOUSLY such a small number of companies id bad for the market, and hence requires regulation of their pricing to protect the consumer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196137</id>
	<title>No-hire pact?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1244045460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me like there's another angle on this, from the perspective of the affected employees, not the customers/competitors.</p><p>By forming a pact that keeps an employee at company A from getting a job at any other company in the cartel, doesn't that run afoul of federal fair labor laws?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me like there 's another angle on this , from the perspective of the affected employees , not the customers/competitors.By forming a pact that keeps an employee at company A from getting a job at any other company in the cartel , does n't that run afoul of federal fair labor laws ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me like there's another angle on this, from the perspective of the affected employees, not the customers/competitors.By forming a pact that keeps an employee at company A from getting a job at any other company in the cartel, doesn't that run afoul of federal fair labor laws?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196381</id>
	<title>Re:antitrust, et al.</title>
	<author>DrEldarion</author>
	<datestamp>1244046480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, how is it a bad thing if Google says to Yahoo, "Hey, we won't try to hire away your employees if you don't try to hire away mine"?</p><p>If anything, that's far less evil than trying to steal anyone they can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , how is it a bad thing if Google says to Yahoo , " Hey , we wo n't try to hire away your employees if you do n't try to hire away mine " ? If anything , that 's far less evil than trying to steal anyone they can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, how is it a bad thing if Google says to Yahoo, "Hey, we won't try to hire away your employees if you don't try to hire away mine"?If anything, that's far less evil than trying to steal anyone they can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197463</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently the Obama administration doesn't</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1244050860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My vote will most likely not change based on any one thing that gets done, unlike your dumb ass who is trying to put a decision on a fairly trivial issue such as copyright law on the same level as genocide and world domination.</p><p>Only an idiot would change his vote based on something as trivial as this.  If all you look at is how someone is going to react to this sort of shit then you're a moron.  There is more than one issue and more than one level of issue and you take the whole picture into account, not one event.</p><p>Would this change my vote?  Fuck no, I'm all for hiring what you would call 'pro-RIAA' lawyers (keep in mind judges ARE lawyers).  Lawyers work for who pays them, they leave their morals at the door and fight for the guy holding the check.  Obama can pull EVERY SINGLE ONE of the RIAA's lawyers into his cabinet.  Then the president will have ALL of the good lawyers and the RIAA/MPAA will be left with second best.  Sounds like a winner to me.  Lawyers aren't loyal unless you're the guy holding the purse strings.  These people aren't 'PRO-RIAA' they are PRO-BIG\_FUCKING\_PAY\_CHECK.</p><p>Way to let your ignorance waste your vote, when you get out of school and clear your head a little maybe you'll get in touch with reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My vote will most likely not change based on any one thing that gets done , unlike your dumb ass who is trying to put a decision on a fairly trivial issue such as copyright law on the same level as genocide and world domination.Only an idiot would change his vote based on something as trivial as this .
If all you look at is how someone is going to react to this sort of shit then you 're a moron .
There is more than one issue and more than one level of issue and you take the whole picture into account , not one event.Would this change my vote ?
Fuck no , I 'm all for hiring what you would call 'pro-RIAA ' lawyers ( keep in mind judges ARE lawyers ) .
Lawyers work for who pays them , they leave their morals at the door and fight for the guy holding the check .
Obama can pull EVERY SINGLE ONE of the RIAA 's lawyers into his cabinet .
Then the president will have ALL of the good lawyers and the RIAA/MPAA will be left with second best .
Sounds like a winner to me .
Lawyers are n't loyal unless you 're the guy holding the purse strings .
These people are n't 'PRO-RIAA ' they are PRO-BIG \ _FUCKING \ _PAY \ _CHECK.Way to let your ignorance waste your vote , when you get out of school and clear your head a little maybe you 'll get in touch with reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My vote will most likely not change based on any one thing that gets done, unlike your dumb ass who is trying to put a decision on a fairly trivial issue such as copyright law on the same level as genocide and world domination.Only an idiot would change his vote based on something as trivial as this.
If all you look at is how someone is going to react to this sort of shit then you're a moron.
There is more than one issue and more than one level of issue and you take the whole picture into account, not one event.Would this change my vote?
Fuck no, I'm all for hiring what you would call 'pro-RIAA' lawyers (keep in mind judges ARE lawyers).
Lawyers work for who pays them, they leave their morals at the door and fight for the guy holding the check.
Obama can pull EVERY SINGLE ONE of the RIAA's lawyers into his cabinet.
Then the president will have ALL of the good lawyers and the RIAA/MPAA will be left with second best.
Sounds like a winner to me.
Lawyers aren't loyal unless you're the guy holding the purse strings.
These people aren't 'PRO-RIAA' they are PRO-BIG\_FUCKING\_PAY\_CHECK.Way to let your ignorance waste your vote, when you get out of school and clear your head a little maybe you'll get in touch with reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197663</id>
	<title>Where in the Constitution</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1244051640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Obama given the authority to regulate businesses - specifically hiring practices. If we allow Obama, et al, to come in and under "anti-trust" provisions penalize these companies for NOT hiring away top talent then our nation has taken a drastic turn towards Marxism. The "hiring truce" is in no way anti-competitive in the sense that it does not affect the marketplace. We still have complete choice between any search engine. Ironically, the one oddly missing from this hiring truce is Microsoft, who is the only one to be convicted of violating anti-trust law! There is no way employments functionally produce a way to maintain market power. If you could put someone else similarly competent, in the position, you'll get a similar result.</p><p><a href="http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/" title="pravda.ru">The Russians were amazed when Obama "fired" the CEO of GM! </a> [pravda.ru]</p><p>I don't want to hear that it "keeps wages down" or that it is a form of "non-compete".  Anti-trust laws are not about jobs. They are about markets. I can use any search engine - google, yahoo, bing(wtf?) and I have plenty of hardware choices. Where I don't have enough choice though is in PC OSs. Thank you, Microsoft.</p><p>We are embarking down a dark path as a nation. Government interference in hiring practices? I can understand racial discrimination (marginally so) but a hiring truce? Give me a break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Obama given the authority to regulate businesses - specifically hiring practices .
If we allow Obama , et al , to come in and under " anti-trust " provisions penalize these companies for NOT hiring away top talent then our nation has taken a drastic turn towards Marxism .
The " hiring truce " is in no way anti-competitive in the sense that it does not affect the marketplace .
We still have complete choice between any search engine .
Ironically , the one oddly missing from this hiring truce is Microsoft , who is the only one to be convicted of violating anti-trust law !
There is no way employments functionally produce a way to maintain market power .
If you could put someone else similarly competent , in the position , you 'll get a similar result.The Russians were amazed when Obama " fired " the CEO of GM !
[ pravda.ru ] I do n't want to hear that it " keeps wages down " or that it is a form of " non-compete " .
Anti-trust laws are not about jobs .
They are about markets .
I can use any search engine - google , yahoo , bing ( wtf ?
) and I have plenty of hardware choices .
Where I do n't have enough choice though is in PC OSs .
Thank you , Microsoft.We are embarking down a dark path as a nation .
Government interference in hiring practices ?
I can understand racial discrimination ( marginally so ) but a hiring truce ?
Give me a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Obama given the authority to regulate businesses - specifically hiring practices.
If we allow Obama, et al, to come in and under "anti-trust" provisions penalize these companies for NOT hiring away top talent then our nation has taken a drastic turn towards Marxism.
The "hiring truce" is in no way anti-competitive in the sense that it does not affect the marketplace.
We still have complete choice between any search engine.
Ironically, the one oddly missing from this hiring truce is Microsoft, who is the only one to be convicted of violating anti-trust law!
There is no way employments functionally produce a way to maintain market power.
If you could put someone else similarly competent, in the position, you'll get a similar result.The Russians were amazed when Obama "fired" the CEO of GM!
[pravda.ru]I don't want to hear that it "keeps wages down" or that it is a form of "non-compete".
Anti-trust laws are not about jobs.
They are about markets.
I can use any search engine - google, yahoo, bing(wtf?
) and I have plenty of hardware choices.
Where I don't have enough choice though is in PC OSs.
Thank you, Microsoft.We are embarking down a dark path as a nation.
Government interference in hiring practices?
I can understand racial discrimination (marginally so) but a hiring truce?
Give me a break.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196449</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1244046840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo! are anything close to a monopoly.</p></div><p>Good luck trying to compete with either of them -- at any level...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo !
are anything close to a monopoly.Good luck trying to compete with either of them -- at any level.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo!
are anything close to a monopoly.Good luck trying to compete with either of them -- at any level...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197065</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently the Obama administration doesn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244049300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, someone voted for a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser\_Helper\_Object" title="wikipedia.org">Browser Helper Object?</a> [wikipedia.org] I've never heard of one being elected, personally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , someone voted for a Browser Helper Object ?
[ wikipedia.org ] I 've never heard of one being elected , personally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, someone voted for a Browser Helper Object?
[wikipedia.org] I've never heard of one being elected, personally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28209409</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>XcepticZP</author>
	<datestamp>1244129460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you nuts? You expecting game developers to develop games for platforms that have a tiny fraction of the market is bonkers, not to mention down right selfish on your part. <br> <br>
Let's do some math. I'll pull some magic numbers out of my ass, definitely biased towards your suggestion. I'll take a reasonably fair number and assume that linux/mac have 15\% of the market, currently. Now, how many of those people do you think will actively buy games for their platform? Lets say 30\% for linux, say 50\% for the mac, and 30\% for the windows, to be fair.
<br>0.3 * 0.15 = 4.5\% for linux.
<br>0.5 * 0.15 = 7.5\% for mac
<br>0.85 * 0.3 = 25.5\% for Windows.
<br>Therefore:<br>(4.5 / 25.5 * 100) Profit loss moving development from windows to linux = 100\% to 17.64\%.
<br>(7.5 / 25.5 * 100) Profit loss moving development from windows to mac = 100\% to 29.41\%
<br> <br>
Now, these are overly generous figures towards your side, and a gross oversimplification of the situation. Not to mention the added cost of developing games for a platform that probably none of your developers have experience in. Or perhaps the added cost of having to develop for 2 or more platforms, even with OpenGL.
<br> <br>So let me get this straight: You are pissed off that they are not willing to reduce their profits four fold?
<br>Here's some homework for you. Promote your favorite platform and maybe, just maybe, someday it will be as <b>successful</b> as Windows currently is. Until then, deal with the fact that your favorite OS is not the best, and quit whining about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you nuts ?
You expecting game developers to develop games for platforms that have a tiny fraction of the market is bonkers , not to mention down right selfish on your part .
Let 's do some math .
I 'll pull some magic numbers out of my ass , definitely biased towards your suggestion .
I 'll take a reasonably fair number and assume that linux/mac have 15 \ % of the market , currently .
Now , how many of those people do you think will actively buy games for their platform ?
Lets say 30 \ % for linux , say 50 \ % for the mac , and 30 \ % for the windows , to be fair .
0.3 * 0.15 = 4.5 \ % for linux .
0.5 * 0.15 = 7.5 \ % for mac 0.85 * 0.3 = 25.5 \ % for Windows .
Therefore : ( 4.5 / 25.5 * 100 ) Profit loss moving development from windows to linux = 100 \ % to 17.64 \ % .
( 7.5 / 25.5 * 100 ) Profit loss moving development from windows to mac = 100 \ % to 29.41 \ % Now , these are overly generous figures towards your side , and a gross oversimplification of the situation .
Not to mention the added cost of developing games for a platform that probably none of your developers have experience in .
Or perhaps the added cost of having to develop for 2 or more platforms , even with OpenGL .
So let me get this straight : You are pissed off that they are not willing to reduce their profits four fold ?
Here 's some homework for you .
Promote your favorite platform and maybe , just maybe , someday it will be as successful as Windows currently is .
Until then , deal with the fact that your favorite OS is not the best , and quit whining about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you nuts?
You expecting game developers to develop games for platforms that have a tiny fraction of the market is bonkers, not to mention down right selfish on your part.
Let's do some math.
I'll pull some magic numbers out of my ass, definitely biased towards your suggestion.
I'll take a reasonably fair number and assume that linux/mac have 15\% of the market, currently.
Now, how many of those people do you think will actively buy games for their platform?
Lets say 30\% for linux, say 50\% for the mac, and 30\% for the windows, to be fair.
0.3 * 0.15 = 4.5\% for linux.
0.5 * 0.15 = 7.5\% for mac
0.85 * 0.3 = 25.5\% for Windows.
Therefore:(4.5 / 25.5 * 100) Profit loss moving development from windows to linux = 100\% to 17.64\%.
(7.5 / 25.5 * 100) Profit loss moving development from windows to mac = 100\% to 29.41\%
 
Now, these are overly generous figures towards your side, and a gross oversimplification of the situation.
Not to mention the added cost of developing games for a platform that probably none of your developers have experience in.
Or perhaps the added cost of having to develop for 2 or more platforms, even with OpenGL.
So let me get this straight: You are pissed off that they are not willing to reduce their profits four fold?
Here's some homework for you.
Promote your favorite platform and maybe, just maybe, someday it will be as successful as Windows currently is.
Until then, deal with the fact that your favorite OS is not the best, and quit whining about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196619</id>
	<title>Big Oil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244047620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is what these companies doing any different than the non compete / anti-head hunting clauses the major oil companies have been using for over four decades to limit employee loss to competitors?  The way I see it this is just bluff and bluster on the DoJ's part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is what these companies doing any different than the non compete / anti-head hunting clauses the major oil companies have been using for over four decades to limit employee loss to competitors ?
The way I see it this is just bluff and bluster on the DoJ 's part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is what these companies doing any different than the non compete / anti-head hunting clauses the major oil companies have been using for over four decades to limit employee loss to competitors?
The way I see it this is just bluff and bluster on the DoJ's part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057</id>
	<title>antitrust, et al.</title>
	<author>megrims</author>
	<datestamp>1244045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do we trust google, again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we trust google , again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we trust google, again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197619</id>
	<title>Re:They have money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244051520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As for Google, they have money, they are current at issue with various "AA" groups that have relations with people in the new guy's administration.</p></div></blockquote><p>Watch Obama's campaign-era speech at Google.  He even mentions he is going to do something different in the antitrust arena.  (Though as I recall, he didn't say this specifically, but you could argue that this is what he promised.  To the Googlers.)</p><p>If everyone will take off their rose colored glasses, about how Apple and Google can do no evil...  This is good for us, the Slashdot reading base, that works in technology.  From the looks of it, this is about our freedom to get hired based on our merits, and not be unfairly disqualified based on some silly corporate arrangement.  If you're working at a tech company and would consider moving over somewhere else, I can't see this as anything but good news.</p><p>But...  It really says something about how people get when they see this as offensive to their favorite cult (Apple, Google).  I would guess that this is just fanboyism, and that the employees this affects aren't this stupid about their allegiances.  If you are working at GOOG and APPL and don't like it, why should you oppose a measure that will make it easier for you to make a career move?</p><p>Also, this is off-topic, but I don't see anybody quoting this part of the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>Antitrust experts say that could include wireless carriers and software operators that may be blocking certain applications from running on their networks and devices.</p></div></blockquote><p>Awesome.  That sounds great.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for Google , they have money , they are current at issue with various " AA " groups that have relations with people in the new guy 's administration.Watch Obama 's campaign-era speech at Google .
He even mentions he is going to do something different in the antitrust arena .
( Though as I recall , he did n't say this specifically , but you could argue that this is what he promised .
To the Googlers .
) If everyone will take off their rose colored glasses , about how Apple and Google can do no evil... This is good for us , the Slashdot reading base , that works in technology .
From the looks of it , this is about our freedom to get hired based on our merits , and not be unfairly disqualified based on some silly corporate arrangement .
If you 're working at a tech company and would consider moving over somewhere else , I ca n't see this as anything but good news.But... It really says something about how people get when they see this as offensive to their favorite cult ( Apple , Google ) .
I would guess that this is just fanboyism , and that the employees this affects are n't this stupid about their allegiances .
If you are working at GOOG and APPL and do n't like it , why should you oppose a measure that will make it easier for you to make a career move ? Also , this is off-topic , but I do n't see anybody quoting this part of the article : Antitrust experts say that could include wireless carriers and software operators that may be blocking certain applications from running on their networks and devices.Awesome .
That sounds great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for Google, they have money, they are current at issue with various "AA" groups that have relations with people in the new guy's administration.Watch Obama's campaign-era speech at Google.
He even mentions he is going to do something different in the antitrust arena.
(Though as I recall, he didn't say this specifically, but you could argue that this is what he promised.
To the Googlers.
)If everyone will take off their rose colored glasses, about how Apple and Google can do no evil...  This is good for us, the Slashdot reading base, that works in technology.
From the looks of it, this is about our freedom to get hired based on our merits, and not be unfairly disqualified based on some silly corporate arrangement.
If you're working at a tech company and would consider moving over somewhere else, I can't see this as anything but good news.But...  It really says something about how people get when they see this as offensive to their favorite cult (Apple, Google).
I would guess that this is just fanboyism, and that the employees this affects aren't this stupid about their allegiances.
If you are working at GOOG and APPL and don't like it, why should you oppose a measure that will make it easier for you to make a career move?Also, this is off-topic, but I don't see anybody quoting this part of the article:Antitrust experts say that could include wireless carriers and software operators that may be blocking certain applications from running on their networks and devices.Awesome.
That sounds great.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28201235</id>
	<title>Nothing new here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244023500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked as an engineer at HP about 15 years ago.  Every year they herded all the employees into meeting rooms to tell us about annual pay raises.  They would make a presentation about how the HP HR people got together with HR people from other big name companies around silicon valley and decided what each engineering job position was worth and how big the raises for the current year should be.  I was utterly disgusted and shocked that they would talk about it as if they were proud of the fact that they were fixing "prices".</p><p>I'm glad someone is finally suing the bastards.  It should have been done a LOOOOOONG time ago.  Now they need to be straightened out over H1B visas and the indentured servants they create.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked as an engineer at HP about 15 years ago .
Every year they herded all the employees into meeting rooms to tell us about annual pay raises .
They would make a presentation about how the HP HR people got together with HR people from other big name companies around silicon valley and decided what each engineering job position was worth and how big the raises for the current year should be .
I was utterly disgusted and shocked that they would talk about it as if they were proud of the fact that they were fixing " prices " .I 'm glad someone is finally suing the bastards .
It should have been done a LOOOOOONG time ago .
Now they need to be straightened out over H1B visas and the indentured servants they create .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked as an engineer at HP about 15 years ago.
Every year they herded all the employees into meeting rooms to tell us about annual pay raises.
They would make a presentation about how the HP HR people got together with HR people from other big name companies around silicon valley and decided what each engineering job position was worth and how big the raises for the current year should be.
I was utterly disgusted and shocked that they would talk about it as if they were proud of the fact that they were fixing "prices".I'm glad someone is finally suing the bastards.
It should have been done a LOOOOOONG time ago.
Now they need to be straightened out over H1B visas and the indentured servants they create.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196345</id>
	<title>They have money</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1244046300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US Government is short of that.</p><p>Even though I own multiple Apple products I would rather see DOJ bust Apple's balls than MS.  At MS doesn't dictate whose machine I can run their OS on (even though I have no Windows computers art home).  As for Google, they have money, they are current at issue with various "AA" groups that have relations with people in the new guy's administration.</p><p>Besides this about restricting employee for leaving for better offers by agreeing not to see out talent from agreed upon companies.  In other words, if they like you they might be willing to make a deal with a competitor so you won't be offered a reason to leave.</p><p>I still figure most of it is about getting more money</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Government is short of that.Even though I own multiple Apple products I would rather see DOJ bust Apple 's balls than MS. At MS does n't dictate whose machine I can run their OS on ( even though I have no Windows computers art home ) .
As for Google , they have money , they are current at issue with various " AA " groups that have relations with people in the new guy 's administration.Besides this about restricting employee for leaving for better offers by agreeing not to see out talent from agreed upon companies .
In other words , if they like you they might be willing to make a deal with a competitor so you wo n't be offered a reason to leave.I still figure most of it is about getting more money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Government is short of that.Even though I own multiple Apple products I would rather see DOJ bust Apple's balls than MS.  At MS doesn't dictate whose machine I can run their OS on (even though I have no Windows computers art home).
As for Google, they have money, they are current at issue with various "AA" groups that have relations with people in the new guy's administration.Besides this about restricting employee for leaving for better offers by agreeing not to see out talent from agreed upon companies.
In other words, if they like you they might be willing to make a deal with a competitor so you won't be offered a reason to leave.I still figure most of it is about getting more money</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28198571</id>
	<title>What aboutr Microsoft??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244055060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are they too big to be looked at or have they bought off so many politicians that they are too corrupt to prosecute.  Europe seems to have the right approach.  While this investigation is about labor pools and collusion there needs to be a major effort to look at restraint of trade on the sell side.  A 90\% market share coupled with the practices M$ uses, including buying off standards committees, Norway for example, and bribing African nations to not use Linux when it is obvious that the people of the nation will not see a cent until it has been filtered through the pockets of the power people and  most of it salted away in Swiss bank accounts, should at least be cause for asking some questions, no matter how much of congress they now own. Their practices make Carnegie and Rockefeller look like amateurs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they too big to be looked at or have they bought off so many politicians that they are too corrupt to prosecute .
Europe seems to have the right approach .
While this investigation is about labor pools and collusion there needs to be a major effort to look at restraint of trade on the sell side .
A 90 \ % market share coupled with the practices M $ uses , including buying off standards committees , Norway for example , and bribing African nations to not use Linux when it is obvious that the people of the nation will not see a cent until it has been filtered through the pockets of the power people and most of it salted away in Swiss bank accounts , should at least be cause for asking some questions , no matter how much of congress they now own .
Their practices make Carnegie and Rockefeller look like amateurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they too big to be looked at or have they bought off so many politicians that they are too corrupt to prosecute.
Europe seems to have the right approach.
While this investigation is about labor pools and collusion there needs to be a major effort to look at restraint of trade on the sell side.
A 90\% market share coupled with the practices M$ uses, including buying off standards committees, Norway for example, and bribing African nations to not use Linux when it is obvious that the people of the nation will not see a cent until it has been filtered through the pockets of the power people and  most of it salted away in Swiss bank accounts, should at least be cause for asking some questions, no matter how much of congress they now own.
Their practices make Carnegie and Rockefeller look like amateurs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196335</id>
	<title>Wheres Microsoft in antitrust investigations?</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1244046240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont understand how they can go after small things like this while Microsoft continues abusing OEM's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont understand how they can go after small things like this while Microsoft continues abusing OEM 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont understand how they can go after small things like this while Microsoft continues abusing OEM's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28209101</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>XcepticZP</author>
	<datestamp>1244128380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, blatant disregard for facts and logic. You truly are a hardcore Microsoft hater!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , blatant disregard for facts and logic .
You truly are a hardcore Microsoft hater !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, blatant disregard for facts and logic.
You truly are a hardcore Microsoft hater!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197339</id>
	<title>Can anyone...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1244050440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm having a tough time figuring out exactly how this hurts consumers?  Can anyone lay it out for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm having a tough time figuring out exactly how this hurts consumers ?
Can anyone lay it out for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm having a tough time figuring out exactly how this hurts consumers?
Can anyone lay it out for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196725</id>
	<title>Re:antitrust, et al.</title>
	<author>haystor</author>
	<datestamp>1244047980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I'm employed by Google and seeking a job at Apple, that agreement is interfering with my negotiations.</p><p>If this is true, they are conducting discussions about employment with each other without the affected parties being represented.</p><p>If it were two companies conspiring against a third company instead of a just a group of anonymous potential employees, the lawsuits would be measured in the billions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm employed by Google and seeking a job at Apple , that agreement is interfering with my negotiations.If this is true , they are conducting discussions about employment with each other without the affected parties being represented.If it were two companies conspiring against a third company instead of a just a group of anonymous potential employees , the lawsuits would be measured in the billions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm employed by Google and seeking a job at Apple, that agreement is interfering with my negotiations.If this is true, they are conducting discussions about employment with each other without the affected parties being represented.If it were two companies conspiring against a third company instead of a just a group of anonymous potential employees, the lawsuits would be measured in the billions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197283</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1244050200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean like WolframAlpha?  They can be competed with.  May take some deep pocket investors and a high power altruistic talent but it happens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like WolframAlpha ?
They can be competed with .
May take some deep pocket investors and a high power altruistic talent but it happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like WolframAlpha?
They can be competed with.
May take some deep pocket investors and a high power altruistic talent but it happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196957</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1244048880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*gasp* I use Windows because I have to. Work requires Windows, I go unemployed I'll finally be free from Windows, but I'd rather not!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* gasp * I use Windows because I have to .
Work requires Windows , I go unemployed I 'll finally be free from Windows , but I 'd rather not !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*gasp* I use Windows because I have to.
Work requires Windows, I go unemployed I'll finally be free from Windows, but I'd rather not!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28202591</id>
	<title>Re:It's monopsony by collusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244028240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the workers at these companies started a union you'd have a monopoly/monopsony situation like what you see going on off the coast of Somalia with the pirates.  Basically, when pirates take a boat, there's one buyer and there's one seller, these situations end up being long and drawn out and usually end up with both sides becoming friends because the length of negotiations are really costly to both sides.</p><p>(thanks NPR!!!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the workers at these companies started a union you 'd have a monopoly/monopsony situation like what you see going on off the coast of Somalia with the pirates .
Basically , when pirates take a boat , there 's one buyer and there 's one seller , these situations end up being long and drawn out and usually end up with both sides becoming friends because the length of negotiations are really costly to both sides .
( thanks NPR ! ! !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the workers at these companies started a union you'd have a monopoly/monopsony situation like what you see going on off the coast of Somalia with the pirates.
Basically, when pirates take a boat, there's one buyer and there's one seller, these situations end up being long and drawn out and usually end up with both sides becoming friends because the length of negotiations are really costly to both sides.
(thanks NPR!!!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196577</id>
	<title>Re:No-hire pact?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244047500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.</p><p>The "pact" is more about reducing the motivation of tech employees from job hopping, which keeps them in as low of a paygrade as possible.</p><p>Any of us who have worked for the larger tech companies realize we only get ahead by job hopping or kissing ass.. and most of us don't do the later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.The " pact " is more about reducing the motivation of tech employees from job hopping , which keeps them in as low of a paygrade as possible.Any of us who have worked for the larger tech companies realize we only get ahead by job hopping or kissing ass.. and most of us do n't do the later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.The "pact" is more about reducing the motivation of tech employees from job hopping, which keeps them in as low of a paygrade as possible.Any of us who have worked for the larger tech companies realize we only get ahead by job hopping or kissing ass.. and most of us don't do the later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28200011</id>
	<title>Re:No-hire pact?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244062080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a bit of a misunderstanding in this thread.  People do not get locked in or out of the cartel.  The issue is with RECRUITING.  I work in this area and here's the rule:  Company A can't proactively CALL someone at company B and say, "Hey, we have a great opening here for you, you should apply.  However, if employee at company B sees the job posted or hears about it through other means, they are allowed to apply for it and make the transfer to company A.  I recently went through this myself. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.heard about an opportunity at a company with a non-compete clause. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.applied, interviewed as a confidential candidate, got the job, and accepted.  No fuss.  They just couldn't call me to let me know about it.  This hiring process does not affect consumers and stifle competition.  Many of these companies also realize they have a very mobile workforce and have competitive compensation and retention plans to keep people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a bit of a misunderstanding in this thread .
People do not get locked in or out of the cartel .
The issue is with RECRUITING .
I work in this area and here 's the rule : Company A ca n't proactively CALL someone at company B and say , " Hey , we have a great opening here for you , you should apply .
However , if employee at company B sees the job posted or hears about it through other means , they are allowed to apply for it and make the transfer to company A. I recently went through this myself .
. .heard about an opportunity at a company with a non-compete clause .
. .applied , interviewed as a confidential candidate , got the job , and accepted .
No fuss .
They just could n't call me to let me know about it .
This hiring process does not affect consumers and stifle competition .
Many of these companies also realize they have a very mobile workforce and have competitive compensation and retention plans to keep people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a bit of a misunderstanding in this thread.
People do not get locked in or out of the cartel.
The issue is with RECRUITING.
I work in this area and here's the rule:  Company A can't proactively CALL someone at company B and say, "Hey, we have a great opening here for you, you should apply.
However, if employee at company B sees the job posted or hears about it through other means, they are allowed to apply for it and make the transfer to company A.  I recently went through this myself.
. .heard about an opportunity at a company with a non-compete clause.
. .applied, interviewed as a confidential candidate, got the job, and accepted.
No fuss.
They just couldn't call me to let me know about it.
This hiring process does not affect consumers and stifle competition.
Many of these companies also realize they have a very mobile workforce and have competitive compensation and retention plans to keep people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196223</id>
	<title>Holy shit!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244045760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh my god!!! Is this happening in the US!? Quick, someone get a camera!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my god ! ! !
Is this happening in the US ! ?
Quick , someone get a camera !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my god!!!
Is this happening in the US!?
Quick, someone get a camera!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28198421</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1244054580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo! are anything close to a monopoly.</p></div><p>I understand your confusion. Most of the discussion of antitrust law on Slashdot is a discussion of Microsoft. Antitrust law is about undermining markets by leveraging market share. These laws apply to monopolies and cartels (also known as trusts). The RIAA is a good example. It is a bunch of companies illegally colluding to undermine the music publishing industry, although no individual member company has a monopoly. In this case the contention is that several tech companies are colluding and forming a trust to collectively disadvantage employees in the tech industry, instead of competing for hires.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Doesn't it make much more sense to go after MS rather then companies which are definitely not monopolies and not abusive ones at that?</p></div><p>It makes sense to go after both, but it seems like such obvious, long term abuse as MS has been engaged in would be a prime target if they weren't donating so much money to both political parties.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo !
are anything close to a monopoly.I understand your confusion .
Most of the discussion of antitrust law on Slashdot is a discussion of Microsoft .
Antitrust law is about undermining markets by leveraging market share .
These laws apply to monopolies and cartels ( also known as trusts ) .
The RIAA is a good example .
It is a bunch of companies illegally colluding to undermine the music publishing industry , although no individual member company has a monopoly .
In this case the contention is that several tech companies are colluding and forming a trust to collectively disadvantage employees in the tech industry , instead of competing for hires.Does n't it make much more sense to go after MS rather then companies which are definitely not monopolies and not abusive ones at that ? It makes sense to go after both , but it seems like such obvious , long term abuse as MS has been engaged in would be a prime target if they were n't donating so much money to both political parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo!
are anything close to a monopoly.I understand your confusion.
Most of the discussion of antitrust law on Slashdot is a discussion of Microsoft.
Antitrust law is about undermining markets by leveraging market share.
These laws apply to monopolies and cartels (also known as trusts).
The RIAA is a good example.
It is a bunch of companies illegally colluding to undermine the music publishing industry, although no individual member company has a monopoly.
In this case the contention is that several tech companies are colluding and forming a trust to collectively disadvantage employees in the tech industry, instead of competing for hires.Doesn't it make much more sense to go after MS rather then companies which are definitely not monopolies and not abusive ones at that?It makes sense to go after both, but it seems like such obvious, long term abuse as MS has been engaged in would be a prime target if they weren't donating so much money to both political parties.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197997</id>
	<title>Non-compete agreements?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244052900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't a non-compete basically the same thing?  Employers go to great lengths to impose their non-compete agreements on prospective employees, most of whom have no trade secrets or proprietary knowledge of anything.  The ultimate goal has nothing to do with the employer's competitors; they simply wish to limit the number of offers an employee might receive (from any source).  Paying higher salaries would accomplish the same thing, but the paperwork solution is cheaper and gives the legal department something to do.</p><p>It just so happens that most (if not all) of the companies mentioned in TFA are California based.  There are no non-competes in California.  To me, it looks like these companies stand accused of doing what non-California employers already do.  It's slightly more obvious in this case, but not much.</p><p>The problem could be solved if non-competes were allowed in all 50 states, for an unlimited term.  But the catch would be that employers would be obligated to pay the employee their existing compensation for the duration of the non-compete period if they are terminated for any reason.  If their knowledge is SOOOO valuable, then paying them to sit on the bench would be a relative bargain, no?  If not, then ditch the strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't a non-compete basically the same thing ?
Employers go to great lengths to impose their non-compete agreements on prospective employees , most of whom have no trade secrets or proprietary knowledge of anything .
The ultimate goal has nothing to do with the employer 's competitors ; they simply wish to limit the number of offers an employee might receive ( from any source ) .
Paying higher salaries would accomplish the same thing , but the paperwork solution is cheaper and gives the legal department something to do.It just so happens that most ( if not all ) of the companies mentioned in TFA are California based .
There are no non-competes in California .
To me , it looks like these companies stand accused of doing what non-California employers already do .
It 's slightly more obvious in this case , but not much.The problem could be solved if non-competes were allowed in all 50 states , for an unlimited term .
But the catch would be that employers would be obligated to pay the employee their existing compensation for the duration of the non-compete period if they are terminated for any reason .
If their knowledge is SOOOO valuable , then paying them to sit on the bench would be a relative bargain , no ?
If not , then ditch the strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't a non-compete basically the same thing?
Employers go to great lengths to impose their non-compete agreements on prospective employees, most of whom have no trade secrets or proprietary knowledge of anything.
The ultimate goal has nothing to do with the employer's competitors; they simply wish to limit the number of offers an employee might receive (from any source).
Paying higher salaries would accomplish the same thing, but the paperwork solution is cheaper and gives the legal department something to do.It just so happens that most (if not all) of the companies mentioned in TFA are California based.
There are no non-competes in California.
To me, it looks like these companies stand accused of doing what non-California employers already do.
It's slightly more obvious in this case, but not much.The problem could be solved if non-competes were allowed in all 50 states, for an unlimited term.
But the catch would be that employers would be obligated to pay the employee their existing compensation for the duration of the non-compete period if they are terminated for any reason.
If their knowledge is SOOOO valuable, then paying them to sit on the bench would be a relative bargain, no?
If not, then ditch the strategy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196797</id>
	<title>They are colluding to keep wages down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244048280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By not hiring from each other, they are dampening the wage escalation that occurs for the best or most strategic talent.</p><p>This does not hurt firms not in the cartel, it hurts their employees. It actually helps companies outside the cartel by reducing the cost to hire away talent from companies in the pact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By not hiring from each other , they are dampening the wage escalation that occurs for the best or most strategic talent.This does not hurt firms not in the cartel , it hurts their employees .
It actually helps companies outside the cartel by reducing the cost to hire away talent from companies in the pact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By not hiring from each other, they are dampening the wage escalation that occurs for the best or most strategic talent.This does not hurt firms not in the cartel, it hurts their employees.
It actually helps companies outside the cartel by reducing the cost to hire away talent from companies in the pact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28199911</id>
	<title>Re:Beware the red herring</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1244061660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What they are doing is collusion in a market which, though probably illegal, keeps costs down, not up.</p></div><p>Are you sure about this?  If you think about it, its probably not true except at the most superficial level.</p><p>Consider that while it is true that they don't get into bidding wars to get the best employees, and therefore can pay them less, the ability to have employees move between companies allows both the employees and the companies the ability to exchange talent and get new ideas.</p><p>Right now, I know people who work in jobs where they have no chance at making the senior levels simply because those levels are filled with people.  There's no real reason why they can't move up, except that there are already people there and those people are just competent enough to not get fired.</p><p>The usual way to get around that is to find a work place that can pay you more or at least comparably to your current job and has an opening that you can move into.  If there is recruitment collusion, then you're stuck, because you won't be able to get that job to move up, or the job has benefits so similar or less than your existing title, that you can't justify taking the risk.</p><p>I've never been a fan of labor movements in general, but I strongly believe that the one thing you don't want to decrease expenditures on (if you can help it) is people.  Allowing people to make a truly competitive wage and be mobile between jobs is what keeps people in good jobs and ensures that top talent is placed where it can do the most good.  If I am at Apple and there is an opening at Microsoft that allows me to leverage my skills to a greater extent than my current Apple job, I should be at Microsoft helping to create better products and driving competition, while at the same time, getting a wage that reflects my talent and skills.</p><p>In the end, it may raise the price of an item superficially to pay for talent, but wages also increase as well.  And the potential benefits from having talented people create better products may also drive prices down for those products.  All this collusion does is keep wages low and prices high since they hoard expertise to themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they are doing is collusion in a market which , though probably illegal , keeps costs down , not up.Are you sure about this ?
If you think about it , its probably not true except at the most superficial level.Consider that while it is true that they do n't get into bidding wars to get the best employees , and therefore can pay them less , the ability to have employees move between companies allows both the employees and the companies the ability to exchange talent and get new ideas.Right now , I know people who work in jobs where they have no chance at making the senior levels simply because those levels are filled with people .
There 's no real reason why they ca n't move up , except that there are already people there and those people are just competent enough to not get fired.The usual way to get around that is to find a work place that can pay you more or at least comparably to your current job and has an opening that you can move into .
If there is recruitment collusion , then you 're stuck , because you wo n't be able to get that job to move up , or the job has benefits so similar or less than your existing title , that you ca n't justify taking the risk.I 've never been a fan of labor movements in general , but I strongly believe that the one thing you do n't want to decrease expenditures on ( if you can help it ) is people .
Allowing people to make a truly competitive wage and be mobile between jobs is what keeps people in good jobs and ensures that top talent is placed where it can do the most good .
If I am at Apple and there is an opening at Microsoft that allows me to leverage my skills to a greater extent than my current Apple job , I should be at Microsoft helping to create better products and driving competition , while at the same time , getting a wage that reflects my talent and skills.In the end , it may raise the price of an item superficially to pay for talent , but wages also increase as well .
And the potential benefits from having talented people create better products may also drive prices down for those products .
All this collusion does is keep wages low and prices high since they hoard expertise to themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they are doing is collusion in a market which, though probably illegal, keeps costs down, not up.Are you sure about this?
If you think about it, its probably not true except at the most superficial level.Consider that while it is true that they don't get into bidding wars to get the best employees, and therefore can pay them less, the ability to have employees move between companies allows both the employees and the companies the ability to exchange talent and get new ideas.Right now, I know people who work in jobs where they have no chance at making the senior levels simply because those levels are filled with people.
There's no real reason why they can't move up, except that there are already people there and those people are just competent enough to not get fired.The usual way to get around that is to find a work place that can pay you more or at least comparably to your current job and has an opening that you can move into.
If there is recruitment collusion, then you're stuck, because you won't be able to get that job to move up, or the job has benefits so similar or less than your existing title, that you can't justify taking the risk.I've never been a fan of labor movements in general, but I strongly believe that the one thing you don't want to decrease expenditures on (if you can help it) is people.
Allowing people to make a truly competitive wage and be mobile between jobs is what keeps people in good jobs and ensures that top talent is placed where it can do the most good.
If I am at Apple and there is an opening at Microsoft that allows me to leverage my skills to a greater extent than my current Apple job, I should be at Microsoft helping to create better products and driving competition, while at the same time, getting a wage that reflects my talent and skills.In the end, it may raise the price of an item superficially to pay for talent, but wages also increase as well.
And the potential benefits from having talented people create better products may also drive prices down for those products.
All this collusion does is keep wages low and prices high since they hoard expertise to themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196041</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1244045100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>By agreeing <b>not</b> to hire away top talent, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly, antitrust experts said...In 2005, Microsoft sued Google for hiring away Kai-Fu Lee...</p></div><p>Good. Hopefully these actions will lead to the outlawing of vaguely wide-ranging NDAs which state that employees may not work for "competitors" for X years after leaving their companies. I wish that TFA provided the list of all the companies because they didn't mention  whether or not Microsoft was in the list despite their example above.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Antitrust experts say that could include wireless carriers and software operators that may be blocking certain applications from running on their networks and devices.</p></div><p>Let's hope so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : By agreeing not to hire away top talent , the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly , antitrust experts said...In 2005 , Microsoft sued Google for hiring away Kai-Fu Lee...Good .
Hopefully these actions will lead to the outlawing of vaguely wide-ranging NDAs which state that employees may not work for " competitors " for X years after leaving their companies .
I wish that TFA provided the list of all the companies because they did n't mention whether or not Microsoft was in the list despite their example above.Antitrust experts say that could include wireless carriers and software operators that may be blocking certain applications from running on their networks and devices.Let 's hope so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:By agreeing not to hire away top talent, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly, antitrust experts said...In 2005, Microsoft sued Google for hiring away Kai-Fu Lee...Good.
Hopefully these actions will lead to the outlawing of vaguely wide-ranging NDAs which state that employees may not work for "competitors" for X years after leaving their companies.
I wish that TFA provided the list of all the companies because they didn't mention  whether or not Microsoft was in the list despite their example above.Antitrust experts say that could include wireless carriers and software operators that may be blocking certain applications from running on their networks and devices.Let's hope so.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196271</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1244045940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Doesn't it make much more sense to go after MS rather then companies which are definitely not monopolies and not abusive ones at that?</p></div></blockquote><p>

I agree.  The browser war is pretty much old news, but I'm really sick to death of how video games for PCs are usually only available for Windows.  If it weren't for that, I could close down my windows partition on my home PC permanently.  Obviously I have no proof of infringing behavior, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that MS is engaging in some anti-competitive practices in this area to shut out competing platforms from the PC gaming market.  If it were me looking at this, I'd look for deals between MS and the video card manufacturers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't it make much more sense to go after MS rather then companies which are definitely not monopolies and not abusive ones at that ?
I agree .
The browser war is pretty much old news , but I 'm really sick to death of how video games for PCs are usually only available for Windows .
If it were n't for that , I could close down my windows partition on my home PC permanently .
Obviously I have no proof of infringing behavior , but I 'd bet dollars to doughnuts that MS is engaging in some anti-competitive practices in this area to shut out competing platforms from the PC gaming market .
If it were me looking at this , I 'd look for deals between MS and the video card manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't it make much more sense to go after MS rather then companies which are definitely not monopolies and not abusive ones at that?
I agree.
The browser war is pretty much old news, but I'm really sick to death of how video games for PCs are usually only available for Windows.
If it weren't for that, I could close down my windows partition on my home PC permanently.
Obviously I have no proof of infringing behavior, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that MS is engaging in some anti-competitive practices in this area to shut out competing platforms from the PC gaming market.
If it were me looking at this, I'd look for deals between MS and the video card manufacturers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196549</id>
	<title>Re:antitrust, et al.</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1244047320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you mean "we", white man?</p><p> <i>(yeah yeah I'm as white as the next guy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P)</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you mean " we " , white man ?
( yeah yeah I 'm as white as the next guy : P )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you mean "we", white man?
(yeah yeah I'm as white as the next guy :P)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197295</id>
	<title>And this is a problem WHY?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244050260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So other than the fact that most of slashdot thinks they should be paid FAR more than they are actually worth, why exactly is this a bad thing?</p><p>You mean some companies agreed to be polite and not steal each others employees.  And now they are getting in trouble?  Since when did common fucking courtesy become illegal?</p><p>You people really need to get in touch with reality.  I've learned that people who bitch loudest about not getting paid fairly are the lazy fuck wads that don't deserve it.  Those people capable of demanding larger salaries because they really are that good, will get hired somewhere for more anyway.</p><p>The only people this 'hurts' are the people who game companies to get more money than they deserve.</p><p>If you really think this is 'wrong' you should pull your head out of your ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So other than the fact that most of slashdot thinks they should be paid FAR more than they are actually worth , why exactly is this a bad thing ? You mean some companies agreed to be polite and not steal each others employees .
And now they are getting in trouble ?
Since when did common fucking courtesy become illegal ? You people really need to get in touch with reality .
I 've learned that people who bitch loudest about not getting paid fairly are the lazy fuck wads that do n't deserve it .
Those people capable of demanding larger salaries because they really are that good , will get hired somewhere for more anyway.The only people this 'hurts ' are the people who game companies to get more money than they deserve.If you really think this is 'wrong ' you should pull your head out of your ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So other than the fact that most of slashdot thinks they should be paid FAR more than they are actually worth, why exactly is this a bad thing?You mean some companies agreed to be polite and not steal each others employees.
And now they are getting in trouble?
Since when did common fucking courtesy become illegal?You people really need to get in touch with reality.
I've learned that people who bitch loudest about not getting paid fairly are the lazy fuck wads that don't deserve it.
Those people capable of demanding larger salaries because they really are that good, will get hired somewhere for more anyway.The only people this 'hurts' are the people who game companies to get more money than they deserve.If you really think this is 'wrong' you should pull your head out of your ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1244045520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo! are anything close to a monopoly. Popular, yes. Abusive, no. Apple is way more open now than it was a few years ago, almost all Apple products have something open source powering it. About the only vaguely monopolistic thing that Apple has done is with the App store for the iPhone. <br> <br>

Doesn't it make much more sense to go after MS rather then companies which are definitely not monopolies and not abusive ones at that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo !
are anything close to a monopoly .
Popular , yes .
Abusive , no .
Apple is way more open now than it was a few years ago , almost all Apple products have something open source powering it .
About the only vaguely monopolistic thing that Apple has done is with the App store for the iPhone .
Does n't it make much more sense to go after MS rather then companies which are definitely not monopolies and not abusive ones at that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously neither Google nor Yahoo!
are anything close to a monopoly.
Popular, yes.
Abusive, no.
Apple is way more open now than it was a few years ago, almost all Apple products have something open source powering it.
About the only vaguely monopolistic thing that Apple has done is with the App store for the iPhone.
Doesn't it make much more sense to go after MS rather then companies which are definitely not monopolies and not abusive ones at that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28198421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28198023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28209409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28209101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28199911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28200011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28202591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_03_142240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28202651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28198571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196271
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28209409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28209101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28198421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28199911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28202591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28200011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196381
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28198023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28197663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_03_142240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_03_142240.28196041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
