<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_1457233</id>
	<title>EC To Pursue Antitrust Despite Microsoft's IE Move</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244821740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>snydeq writes <i>"The European Commission will <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/ec-pursue-antitrust-case-despite-microsofts-ie-decision-299">proceed with its antitrust case against Microsoft</a> regardless of Microsoft's decision to <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/11/2032217/Microsoft-Will-Ship-Windows-7-in-Europe-With-IE-Unbundled?art\_pos=15">strip IE from Windows 7 in Europe</a>. Europe's top antitrust regulator said the EC would draw up a remedy that allows computer users 'genuine consumer choice,' noting that stripping out IE from Windows 'may potentially be positive,' but 'rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less.' Jon von Tetzchner, CEO of Opera, whose complaint to the European Commission at the end of 2007 sparked the initial antitrust investigation, said Microsoft is '<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/t/regulation/microsoft-trying-set-own-antitrust-remedy-says-opera-ceo-304">trying to set the remedy itself by stripping out IE</a>. ... Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows, the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy,' he said."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " The European Commission will proceed with its antitrust case against Microsoft regardless of Microsoft 's decision to strip IE from Windows 7 in Europe .
Europe 's top antitrust regulator said the EC would draw up a remedy that allows computer users 'genuine consumer choice, ' noting that stripping out IE from Windows 'may potentially be positive, ' but 'rather than more choice , Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less .
' Jon von Tetzchner , CEO of Opera , whose complaint to the European Commission at the end of 2007 sparked the initial antitrust investigation , said Microsoft is 'trying to set the remedy itself by stripping out IE .
... Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows , the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy, ' he said .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "The European Commission will proceed with its antitrust case against Microsoft regardless of Microsoft's decision to strip IE from Windows 7 in Europe.
Europe's top antitrust regulator said the EC would draw up a remedy that allows computer users 'genuine consumer choice,' noting that stripping out IE from Windows 'may potentially be positive,' but 'rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less.
' Jon von Tetzchner, CEO of Opera, whose complaint to the European Commission at the end of 2007 sparked the initial antitrust investigation, said Microsoft is 'trying to set the remedy itself by stripping out IE.
... Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows, the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy,' he said.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309643</id>
	<title>the browser arguement is lame</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1244827380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>what is a real issue today is the ability of buying a PC either desktop or laptop with an OS other than microsoft, [eg] FreeDOS, BSD, Linux, not giving consumers a choice of OS when buying a PC is the bigger monopolistic crime...</htmltext>
<tokenext>what is a real issue today is the ability of buying a PC either desktop or laptop with an OS other than microsoft , [ eg ] FreeDOS , BSD , Linux , not giving consumers a choice of OS when buying a PC is the bigger monopolistic crime.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is a real issue today is the ability of buying a PC either desktop or laptop with an OS other than microsoft, [eg] FreeDOS, BSD, Linux, not giving consumers a choice of OS when buying a PC is the bigger monopolistic crime...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>DrLang21</author>
	<datestamp>1244827560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly what MS should do to appease the EC is bundle every copy of Windows with IE, Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera, Safari, Netscape, SeaMonkey, K-Meleon, Amaya, Maxthon, Flock, Slim, KidRocket, PhaseOut, Crazy Browser, Smart Bro, ShenzBrowser, JonDoFox, Avant, xB, Sleipnir, spacetime, Browser3D, 3B Room, Bitty, Grail, Lynx, and Happy Browser.  Clearly this will improve Windows performance and usability for the average consumer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly what MS should do to appease the EC is bundle every copy of Windows with IE , Firefox , Google Chrome , Opera , Safari , Netscape , SeaMonkey , K-Meleon , Amaya , Maxthon , Flock , Slim , KidRocket , PhaseOut , Crazy Browser , Smart Bro , ShenzBrowser , JonDoFox , Avant , xB , Sleipnir , spacetime , Browser3D , 3B Room , Bitty , Grail , Lynx , and Happy Browser .
Clearly this will improve Windows performance and usability for the average consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly what MS should do to appease the EC is bundle every copy of Windows with IE, Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera, Safari, Netscape, SeaMonkey, K-Meleon, Amaya, Maxthon, Flock, Slim, KidRocket, PhaseOut, Crazy Browser, Smart Bro, ShenzBrowser, JonDoFox, Avant, xB, Sleipnir, spacetime, Browser3D, 3B Room, Bitty, Grail, Lynx, and Happy Browser.
Clearly this will improve Windows performance and usability for the average consumer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310463</id>
	<title>Smaaaaart</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1244830500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just as microsoft chose the 'smartass' method of 'letting the pc manufacturers install the browser' as a 'solution'. which would amount to, well, ie getting installed.</p><p>glad to see European regulators are not stupid and bought out as the u.s. ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just as microsoft chose the 'smartass ' method of 'letting the pc manufacturers install the browser ' as a 'solution' .
which would amount to , well , ie getting installed.glad to see European regulators are not stupid and bought out as the u.s. ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just as microsoft chose the 'smartass' method of 'letting the pc manufacturers install the browser' as a 'solution'.
which would amount to, well, ie getting installed.glad to see European regulators are not stupid and bought out as the u.s. ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28314997</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>SBrach</author>
	<datestamp>1244806020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How bout the top 3?  IE6, IE7, and IE8.  Oh the choices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How bout the top 3 ?
IE6 , IE7 , and IE8 .
Oh the choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How bout the top 3?
IE6, IE7, and IE8.
Oh the choices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310407</id>
	<title>unbundle it all</title>
	<author>bugi</author>
	<datestamp>1244830260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If MS were to just unbundle it all, they could get the advantage of lots of distributors innovating, much as linux and bsd benefit from constant experimenting and conversation surrounding their various distributions.</p><p>MS would no doubt continue as "the" distributor, but they would gain much from outside input.  Of course, much of the outside input would consist of imitating the rich world outside the MS closed ecosystem but even so, MS couldn't help but benefit.</p><p>I for one would love to see a Debian GNU/mskernel port.  Or even a Debian MS/Linux port.  Okay, maybe not to use, but definitely to see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If MS were to just unbundle it all , they could get the advantage of lots of distributors innovating , much as linux and bsd benefit from constant experimenting and conversation surrounding their various distributions.MS would no doubt continue as " the " distributor , but they would gain much from outside input .
Of course , much of the outside input would consist of imitating the rich world outside the MS closed ecosystem but even so , MS could n't help but benefit.I for one would love to see a Debian GNU/mskernel port .
Or even a Debian MS/Linux port .
Okay , maybe not to use , but definitely to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If MS were to just unbundle it all, they could get the advantage of lots of distributors innovating, much as linux and bsd benefit from constant experimenting and conversation surrounding their various distributions.MS would no doubt continue as "the" distributor, but they would gain much from outside input.
Of course, much of the outside input would consist of imitating the rich world outside the MS closed ecosystem but even so, MS couldn't help but benefit.I for one would love to see a Debian GNU/mskernel port.
Or even a Debian MS/Linux port.
Okay, maybe not to use, but definitely to see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28387585</id>
	<title>Re:Let me see if I have this right...</title>
	<author>notrandomly</author>
	<datestamp>1245413880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They haven't told Microsoft what is acceptable</p></div></blockquote><p>
Actually, the EC signaled <a href="http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/01/29/microsoft\_ec\_browser\_warning/" title="channelregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">several months ago</a> [channelregister.co.uk] that a browser ballot was the most likely result.</p><blockquote><div><p>They make a decision that ought to satisfy any reasonable logical human being.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Except it doesn't. It's <a href="http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/06/12/microsoft\_windows\_7\_ie\_europe/" title="channelregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">pure manipulation</a> [channelregister.co.uk] by Microsoft because they know that given two evils, removing IE7 will give them the best chance to keep abusing their Windows monopoly.</p><blockquote><div><p>But the EC says we're still going to pursue this as an antitrust case even though there is no longer any antitrust concern.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You say there aren't. Those who have actually paid attention say there are.

</p><p>Do you work for Microsoft? A Microsoft partner?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have n't told Microsoft what is acceptable Actually , the EC signaled several months ago [ channelregister.co.uk ] that a browser ballot was the most likely result.They make a decision that ought to satisfy any reasonable logical human being .
Except it does n't .
It 's pure manipulation [ channelregister.co.uk ] by Microsoft because they know that given two evils , removing IE7 will give them the best chance to keep abusing their Windows monopoly.But the EC says we 're still going to pursue this as an antitrust case even though there is no longer any antitrust concern .
You say there are n't .
Those who have actually paid attention say there are .
Do you work for Microsoft ?
A Microsoft partner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They haven't told Microsoft what is acceptable
Actually, the EC signaled several months ago [channelregister.co.uk] that a browser ballot was the most likely result.They make a decision that ought to satisfy any reasonable logical human being.
Except it doesn't.
It's pure manipulation [channelregister.co.uk] by Microsoft because they know that given two evils, removing IE7 will give them the best chance to keep abusing their Windows monopoly.But the EC says we're still going to pursue this as an antitrust case even though there is no longer any antitrust concern.
You say there aren't.
Those who have actually paid attention say there are.
Do you work for Microsoft?
A Microsoft partner?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28312023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28387621</id>
	<title>Re:Give the EU a break</title>
	<author>notrandomly</author>
	<datestamp>1245414360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wasn't the EU which first got the case started, so yet another insane and idiotic conspiracy theory falls apart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't the EU which first got the case started , so yet another insane and idiotic conspiracy theory falls apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't the EU which first got the case started, so yet another insane and idiotic conspiracy theory falls apart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28319835</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>perryizgr8</author>
	<datestamp>1244908380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>oh you forgot the one that i made for my hi school assignment. the one with only an address bar. i wanna compete too!<br>and if anyone tells yo that i coded into it a keylogger that will email me all the passwords and credit card nos, don't believe it man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>oh you forgot the one that i made for my hi school assignment .
the one with only an address bar .
i wan na compete too ! and if anyone tells yo that i coded into it a keylogger that will email me all the passwords and credit card nos , do n't believe it man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh you forgot the one that i made for my hi school assignment.
the one with only an address bar.
i wanna compete too!and if anyone tells yo that i coded into it a keylogger that will email me all the passwords and credit card nos, don't believe it man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311957</id>
	<title>Re:deserved</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1244836200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent expresses a valid opinion, and never should have been modded down.  The mod speaks volumes for corporate fanboism and American ethnocentricity - not to mention the moderator's intelligence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent expresses a valid opinion , and never should have been modded down .
The mod speaks volumes for corporate fanboism and American ethnocentricity - not to mention the moderator 's intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent expresses a valid opinion, and never should have been modded down.
The mod speaks volumes for corporate fanboism and American ethnocentricity - not to mention the moderator's intelligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309697</id>
	<title>deserved</title>
	<author>howlingmadhowie</author>
	<datestamp>1244827620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>now this is interesting. the eu does something to try to stop the most abusive monopolistic company of modern times, a company which costs the economies of the world billions of dollars every year, a company which forces drm and ignorance down the consumers' throats and what happens? suddenly the eu is in the wrong because "it's not america". i only hope most of the replies up to now have been astroturfing by microsoft, because if they aren't this paints a rather sorry picture of america and americans in general.</htmltext>
<tokenext>now this is interesting .
the eu does something to try to stop the most abusive monopolistic company of modern times , a company which costs the economies of the world billions of dollars every year , a company which forces drm and ignorance down the consumers ' throats and what happens ?
suddenly the eu is in the wrong because " it 's not america " .
i only hope most of the replies up to now have been astroturfing by microsoft , because if they are n't this paints a rather sorry picture of america and americans in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now this is interesting.
the eu does something to try to stop the most abusive monopolistic company of modern times, a company which costs the economies of the world billions of dollars every year, a company which forces drm and ignorance down the consumers' throats and what happens?
suddenly the eu is in the wrong because "it's not america".
i only hope most of the replies up to now have been astroturfing by microsoft, because if they aren't this paints a rather sorry picture of america and americans in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309665</id>
	<title>Honestly you lack fantasy...</title>
	<author>emanem</author>
	<datestamp>1244827500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, I agree with EU.<br>
American antitrust is proven not to work. Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing. Zero. Nada.<br>
<br>
This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers.<br>
How do I browse the above web page?<br>
With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page.<br>
I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do...<br>
And if you think carefully is the <b>only</b> way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE. Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it. At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years?<br>
Be honest: do you <b>really</b> think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE?<br>
<br>
Cheers,</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I agree with EU .
American antitrust is proven not to work .
Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you , americans , did nothing .
Zero. Nada .
This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers .
How do I browse the above web page ?
With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page .
I know it sounds ridicolous , but it 's what the EU will force MS to do.. . And if you think carefully is the only way MS ca n't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE .
Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it .
At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years ?
Be honest : do you really think that if MS will leave ( so called ) free choice to PC vendors , behind , those will be forced to embed IE ?
Cheers,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I agree with EU.
American antitrust is proven not to work.
Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing.
Zero. Nada.
This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers.
How do I browse the above web page?
With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page.
I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do...
And if you think carefully is the only way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE.
Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it.
At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years?
Be honest: do you really think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE?
Cheers,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310757</id>
	<title>Re:Let me see if I have this right...</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1244831700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh ho ho ho...so it's OPERA who is being the evil monopolist here, pulling government strings to get its way.  I can see how this could really suck for Microsoft.  You have to feel for them, according to you they're really getting screwed.  It'a all so unfair!<p>On the other hand, the PC browser market for Opera is essentially an afterthought - their paying customers are in embedded systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh ho ho ho...so it 's OPERA who is being the evil monopolist here , pulling government strings to get its way .
I can see how this could really suck for Microsoft .
You have to feel for them , according to you they 're really getting screwed .
It'a all so unfair ! On the other hand , the PC browser market for Opera is essentially an afterthought - their paying customers are in embedded systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh ho ho ho...so it's OPERA who is being the evil monopolist here, pulling government strings to get its way.
I can see how this could really suck for Microsoft.
You have to feel for them, according to you they're really getting screwed.
It'a all so unfair!On the other hand, the PC browser market for Opera is essentially an afterthought - their paying customers are in embedded systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244825700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree completely.  I don't use IE myself, but the EC's position that MS should not only not bundle their own browser, but instead bundle *competing* browsers is inane.  I'm not a gung-ho laissez-faire capitalist, but forcing companies to promote competing products is over the line.</p><p>Of course, not bundling a browser is problematic as well.  The technologically illiterate, and even the semi-skilled could not figure out how to download a browser without having a browser to start with.  All I'd like to see is the option to uninstall cleanly, not a mandatory release of a browser-less (read: near useless) OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely .
I do n't use IE myself , but the EC 's position that MS should not only not bundle their own browser , but instead bundle * competing * browsers is inane .
I 'm not a gung-ho laissez-faire capitalist , but forcing companies to promote competing products is over the line.Of course , not bundling a browser is problematic as well .
The technologically illiterate , and even the semi-skilled could not figure out how to download a browser without having a browser to start with .
All I 'd like to see is the option to uninstall cleanly , not a mandatory release of a browser-less ( read : near useless ) OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely.
I don't use IE myself, but the EC's position that MS should not only not bundle their own browser, but instead bundle *competing* browsers is inane.
I'm not a gung-ho laissez-faire capitalist, but forcing companies to promote competing products is over the line.Of course, not bundling a browser is problematic as well.
The technologically illiterate, and even the semi-skilled could not figure out how to download a browser without having a browser to start with.
All I'd like to see is the option to uninstall cleanly, not a mandatory release of a browser-less (read: near useless) OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113</id>
	<title>Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244825400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., where everyone just loves to bash MS at every opportunity. But the EC is way out of line on this one.
</p><p>First of all, the old "bundling a browser with your OS is unfair" argument is a relic from the 90's, when browsers were still a bit of a novelty. But it's 2009. *EVERY* OS comes bundled with a browser now--Apple, Ubuntu, everyone. Forcing MS not to bundle a simple default browser with their OS isn't leveling the playing field, it's forcing them to play with a disadvantage over everyone else. Including a default browser with your OS today is no more remarkable than including a default media player, or calculator, or text editor, etc. How would you even GET to the Firefox website to install it if you didn't have IE included with a fresh Windows install (this isn't 1996--most people don't keep install discs for their browsers anymore).
</p><p>Secondly, what exactly is MS supposed to do if NOT bundling their browser isn't even enough for the EC? Are they supposed to have Steve Ballmer commit seppuku? Announce they're going out of business? Drop to their knees and give handjobs to all the EC commissioners? If even a move that will put them at a serious disadvantage in competing with Apple and Linux isn't enough--then *WHAT EXACTLY IS*?
</p><p>At this point the EC isn't helping the consumer, they just seem like they're being spiteful. They whole thing seems more like a grudge than a public service.
</p><p>
Okay diehard MS bashers, flame away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is /. , where everyone just loves to bash MS at every opportunity .
But the EC is way out of line on this one .
First of all , the old " bundling a browser with your OS is unfair " argument is a relic from the 90 's , when browsers were still a bit of a novelty .
But it 's 2009 .
* EVERY * OS comes bundled with a browser now--Apple , Ubuntu , everyone .
Forcing MS not to bundle a simple default browser with their OS is n't leveling the playing field , it 's forcing them to play with a disadvantage over everyone else .
Including a default browser with your OS today is no more remarkable than including a default media player , or calculator , or text editor , etc .
How would you even GET to the Firefox website to install it if you did n't have IE included with a fresh Windows install ( this is n't 1996--most people do n't keep install discs for their browsers anymore ) .
Secondly , what exactly is MS supposed to do if NOT bundling their browser is n't even enough for the EC ?
Are they supposed to have Steve Ballmer commit seppuku ?
Announce they 're going out of business ?
Drop to their knees and give handjobs to all the EC commissioners ?
If even a move that will put them at a serious disadvantage in competing with Apple and Linux is n't enough--then * WHAT EXACTLY IS * ?
At this point the EC is n't helping the consumer , they just seem like they 're being spiteful .
They whole thing seems more like a grudge than a public service .
Okay diehard MS bashers , flame away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is /., where everyone just loves to bash MS at every opportunity.
But the EC is way out of line on this one.
First of all, the old "bundling a browser with your OS is unfair" argument is a relic from the 90's, when browsers were still a bit of a novelty.
But it's 2009.
*EVERY* OS comes bundled with a browser now--Apple, Ubuntu, everyone.
Forcing MS not to bundle a simple default browser with their OS isn't leveling the playing field, it's forcing them to play with a disadvantage over everyone else.
Including a default browser with your OS today is no more remarkable than including a default media player, or calculator, or text editor, etc.
How would you even GET to the Firefox website to install it if you didn't have IE included with a fresh Windows install (this isn't 1996--most people don't keep install discs for their browsers anymore).
Secondly, what exactly is MS supposed to do if NOT bundling their browser isn't even enough for the EC?
Are they supposed to have Steve Ballmer commit seppuku?
Announce they're going out of business?
Drop to their knees and give handjobs to all the EC commissioners?
If even a move that will put them at a serious disadvantage in competing with Apple and Linux isn't enough--then *WHAT EXACTLY IS*?
At this point the EC isn't helping the consumer, they just seem like they're being spiteful.
They whole thing seems more like a grudge than a public service.
Okay diehard MS bashers, flame away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28320115</id>
	<title>getting the first one!</title>
	<author>idn435</author>
	<datestamp>1244910960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to wonder just how mr Joe Public will get a browser in the first place. I doubt many of their target audience is going to know command line FTP, or can be bothered to download it via a second PC.</p><p>Unless, and I'm guessing here, there's some sort of windows update which installs IE as soon as the OS is installed!! That allows them to say that they haven't bundled it, while at the same time giving IE as the only option. Unless there's the option to pick another (possibly via some registry hack or other almost impossible windows hack that non-savvy users won't know about)</p><p>Giving users a choice of nothing is going to cause a bit of a public backlash - which will go one of two ways;
</p><ul>
<li>either everyone will dump windows for being useless and not allowing them the basics applications that they're used to (or stick with XP for a lot, lot longer),</li><li>or they'll complain to the EU that they can't use the internet because they haven't been give a browser.</li></ul><p>I can't believe Microsoft would be quite that stupid, so it looks to me like they are trying for the sympathy vote, basically hoping to turn any complaints for their own non-compliance back on the EU. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to wonder just how mr Joe Public will get a browser in the first place .
I doubt many of their target audience is going to know command line FTP , or can be bothered to download it via a second PC.Unless , and I 'm guessing here , there 's some sort of windows update which installs IE as soon as the OS is installed ! !
That allows them to say that they have n't bundled it , while at the same time giving IE as the only option .
Unless there 's the option to pick another ( possibly via some registry hack or other almost impossible windows hack that non-savvy users wo n't know about ) Giving users a choice of nothing is going to cause a bit of a public backlash - which will go one of two ways ; either everyone will dump windows for being useless and not allowing them the basics applications that they 're used to ( or stick with XP for a lot , lot longer ) ,or they 'll complain to the EU that they ca n't use the internet because they have n't been give a browser.I ca n't believe Microsoft would be quite that stupid , so it looks to me like they are trying for the sympathy vote , basically hoping to turn any complaints for their own non-compliance back on the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to wonder just how mr Joe Public will get a browser in the first place.
I doubt many of their target audience is going to know command line FTP, or can be bothered to download it via a second PC.Unless, and I'm guessing here, there's some sort of windows update which installs IE as soon as the OS is installed!!
That allows them to say that they haven't bundled it, while at the same time giving IE as the only option.
Unless there's the option to pick another (possibly via some registry hack or other almost impossible windows hack that non-savvy users won't know about)Giving users a choice of nothing is going to cause a bit of a public backlash - which will go one of two ways;

either everyone will dump windows for being useless and not allowing them the basics applications that they're used to (or stick with XP for a lot, lot longer),or they'll complain to the EU that they can't use the internet because they haven't been give a browser.I can't believe Microsoft would be quite that stupid, so it looks to me like they are trying for the sympathy vote, basically hoping to turn any complaints for their own non-compliance back on the EU. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309379</id>
	<title>I can see their point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244826480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would the average user download another browser without IE installed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would the average user download another browser without IE installed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would the average user download another browser without IE installed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309169</id>
	<title>Stupid mongrels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244825700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eurofags: they should fix their immigration policies instead of limiting freedom and capitalism...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eurofags : they should fix their immigration policies instead of limiting freedom and capitalism.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eurofags: they should fix their immigration policies instead of limiting freedom and capitalism...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310103</id>
	<title>Ballot screen is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1244829000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera is being a crybaby. I am saying that being a longtime user of Opera exclusively. In fact I am typing this on Opera 10 beta that I just installed and is pretty slick. But really, they gotta stop this nonsense.<p><div class="quote"><p>"If Microsoft got its way there would be no ballot screen, just a version of Windows that has no browser at all -- just like the edition 'n' of Windows that resulted from the earlier European antitrust case," he said.</p></div><p>Ballot screen for a browser is BS. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run?

If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice?

</p><p>
What will the order in which the browsers are presented? WTF is going on with the EU?
</p><p>

The only sane way for MS to comply was to remove IE. And they did that and still the whining continues.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows, the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy," he added.</p></div><p>Uhh? The case is still running and this is a pre-emptive measure to stop large fine. From MS's blog:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In January 2009 the Commission sent Microsoft a &#226;oeStatement of Objections.&#226; In it the Commission advised Microsoft of its preliminary view that the inclusion of Web browsing software in Windows violates European competition law. The Commission said in this document that it intends to impose a fine for this.</p></div><p>To avoid the fine, MS removed IE, and still there's a lot of BS going on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera is being a crybaby .
I am saying that being a longtime user of Opera exclusively .
In fact I am typing this on Opera 10 beta that I just installed and is pretty slick .
But really , they got ta stop this nonsense .
" If Microsoft got its way there would be no ballot screen , just a version of Windows that has no browser at all -- just like the edition 'n ' of Windows that resulted from the earlier European antitrust case , " he said.Ballot screen for a browser is BS .
How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run ?
If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice ?
What will the order in which the browsers are presented ?
WTF is going on with the EU ?
The only sane way for MS to comply was to remove IE .
And they did that and still the whining continues .
" Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows , the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy , " he added.Uhh ?
The case is still running and this is a pre-emptive measure to stop large fine .
From MS 's blog : In January 2009 the Commission sent Microsoft a   oeStatement of Objections.   In it the Commission advised Microsoft of its preliminary view that the inclusion of Web browsing software in Windows violates European competition law .
The Commission said in this document that it intends to impose a fine for this.To avoid the fine , MS removed IE , and still there 's a lot of BS going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera is being a crybaby.
I am saying that being a longtime user of Opera exclusively.
In fact I am typing this on Opera 10 beta that I just installed and is pretty slick.
But really, they gotta stop this nonsense.
"If Microsoft got its way there would be no ballot screen, just a version of Windows that has no browser at all -- just like the edition 'n' of Windows that resulted from the earlier European antitrust case," he said.Ballot screen for a browser is BS.
How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run?
If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice?
What will the order in which the browsers are presented?
WTF is going on with the EU?
The only sane way for MS to comply was to remove IE.
And they did that and still the whining continues.
"Now that Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows, the Commission must push ahead with an effective remedy," he added.Uhh?
The case is still running and this is a pre-emptive measure to stop large fine.
From MS's blog:In January 2009 the Commission sent Microsoft a âoeStatement of Objections.â In it the Commission advised Microsoft of its preliminary view that the inclusion of Web browsing software in Windows violates European competition law.
The Commission said in this document that it intends to impose a fine for this.To avoid the fine, MS removed IE, and still there's a lot of BS going on.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310335</id>
	<title>Re:deserved</title>
	<author>Sethus</author>
	<datestamp>1244829960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to knock you too hard Howlingmadhowie, but I think the best response to your somewhat anti-american post is another person's post in this thread:<p><div class="quote"><p> djupedal (584558) Alter Relationship   on Friday June 12, @12:03PM (#28309309)
You have to stop and take a look at this from the EU point of view.
<br> <br>
In the US, we seek humanistic solutions to what we see as wrongs done to the individual. In the EU, they seek procedural solutions to what they see as services gone wrong.</p> </div><p>A good example of this; Open source solutions, a free alternative or try to promote a free GUI alternative (opera, Ubuntu, Firefox).  While the EU is more likely to enforce some business restrictions; a top down approach.  This is a predominantly American website, so of course you're going to see mods like that.  And yes; some are of course going to be xenophobic (goodness knows we're a xenophobic nation), but the way we want solutions is simply inherently different (I believe) because of our culture.  <br> <br>

So when the EC does what we see to be an overbearing government standard to protect its people, some Americans see it as trying to interfere with fair business practices.  I'm not here trying to convince you that you're wrong, but perhaps being a bit quick to judge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to knock you too hard Howlingmadhowie , but I think the best response to your somewhat anti-american post is another person 's post in this thread : djupedal ( 584558 ) Alter Relationship on Friday June 12 , @ 12 : 03PM ( # 28309309 ) You have to stop and take a look at this from the EU point of view .
In the US , we seek humanistic solutions to what we see as wrongs done to the individual .
In the EU , they seek procedural solutions to what they see as services gone wrong .
A good example of this ; Open source solutions , a free alternative or try to promote a free GUI alternative ( opera , Ubuntu , Firefox ) .
While the EU is more likely to enforce some business restrictions ; a top down approach .
This is a predominantly American website , so of course you 're going to see mods like that .
And yes ; some are of course going to be xenophobic ( goodness knows we 're a xenophobic nation ) , but the way we want solutions is simply inherently different ( I believe ) because of our culture .
So when the EC does what we see to be an overbearing government standard to protect its people , some Americans see it as trying to interfere with fair business practices .
I 'm not here trying to convince you that you 're wrong , but perhaps being a bit quick to judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to knock you too hard Howlingmadhowie, but I think the best response to your somewhat anti-american post is another person's post in this thread: djupedal (584558) Alter Relationship   on Friday June 12, @12:03PM (#28309309)
You have to stop and take a look at this from the EU point of view.
In the US, we seek humanistic solutions to what we see as wrongs done to the individual.
In the EU, they seek procedural solutions to what they see as services gone wrong.
A good example of this; Open source solutions, a free alternative or try to promote a free GUI alternative (opera, Ubuntu, Firefox).
While the EU is more likely to enforce some business restrictions; a top down approach.
This is a predominantly American website, so of course you're going to see mods like that.
And yes; some are of course going to be xenophobic (goodness knows we're a xenophobic nation), but the way we want solutions is simply inherently different (I believe) because of our culture.
So when the EC does what we see to be an overbearing government standard to protect its people, some Americans see it as trying to interfere with fair business practices.
I'm not here trying to convince you that you're wrong, but perhaps being a bit quick to judge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309829</id>
	<title>Re:"MS breaking the law by bundling IE.."?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244827980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>no. ubuntu is not a monopoly. ubuntu does not make money out of supplying a terminal. ubuntu does not drive competitors out of business by making dash the default terminal. ubuntu does not package its own terminal either, because ubuntu does not have its own terminal. so basically the two cases are pretty dissimilar, but i imagine you already knew that and were just trolling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no .
ubuntu is not a monopoly .
ubuntu does not make money out of supplying a terminal .
ubuntu does not drive competitors out of business by making dash the default terminal .
ubuntu does not package its own terminal either , because ubuntu does not have its own terminal .
so basically the two cases are pretty dissimilar , but i imagine you already knew that and were just trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no.
ubuntu is not a monopoly.
ubuntu does not make money out of supplying a terminal.
ubuntu does not drive competitors out of business by making dash the default terminal.
ubuntu does not package its own terminal either, because ubuntu does not have its own terminal.
so basically the two cases are pretty dissimilar, but i imagine you already knew that and were just trolling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310563</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244830920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU will say it's still unfair to competitors because IE is at the top of the list. The list must be alphabetical to promote an even playing field and consumer choice!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU will say it 's still unfair to competitors because IE is at the top of the list .
The list must be alphabetical to promote an even playing field and consumer choice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU will say it's still unfair to competitors because IE is at the top of the list.
The list must be alphabetical to promote an even playing field and consumer choice!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28387607</id>
	<title>Re:Ballot screen is a bad idea.</title>
	<author>notrandomly</author>
	<datestamp>1245414240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Opera is being a crybaby.</p></div></blockquote><p>
How, exactly? How is reporting a crime being a crybaby? And isn't it interesting that you accuse Opera of being a crybaby, while at the same time are crying over Microsoft being taken to task for their illegal actions? Hypocrite, are we?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><blockquote><div><p>Ballot screen for a browser is BS. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run?</p></div></blockquote><p>
That remains to be determined, now doesn't it? There are many criteria that can be used. In practice, everyone knows that the likely browsers to be bundled are IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and possibly Safari. It really isn't that difficult.</p><blockquote><div><p>The only sane way for MS to comply was to remove IE. And they did that and still the whining continues.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, removing IE was <a href="http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/06/12/microsoft\_windows\_7\_ie\_europe/" title="channelregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">not the sane option</a> [channelregister.co.uk] at all. In fact, the EC <a href="http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/01/29/microsoft\_ec\_browser\_warning/" title="channelregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">signaled months ago</a> [channelregister.co.uk] that a browser ballot was the most likely outcome.

</p><p>Microsoft knows that removing IE was not an acceptable remedy, but they tried to game the process. They failed. Microsoft knew that the EC wasn't going to accept it because of the EC's well known position, and they did it anyway. And now you and other Microsoft shills are whining when Microsoft's bluff was called.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera is being a crybaby .
How , exactly ?
How is reporting a crime being a crybaby ?
And is n't it interesting that you accuse Opera of being a crybaby , while at the same time are crying over Microsoft being taken to task for their illegal actions ?
Hypocrite , are we ?
: ) Ballot screen for a browser is BS .
How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run ?
That remains to be determined , now does n't it ?
There are many criteria that can be used .
In practice , everyone knows that the likely browsers to be bundled are IE , Firefox , Chrome , Opera and possibly Safari .
It really is n't that difficult.The only sane way for MS to comply was to remove IE .
And they did that and still the whining continues .
No , removing IE was not the sane option [ channelregister.co.uk ] at all .
In fact , the EC signaled months ago [ channelregister.co.uk ] that a browser ballot was the most likely outcome .
Microsoft knows that removing IE was not an acceptable remedy , but they tried to game the process .
They failed .
Microsoft knew that the EC was n't going to accept it because of the EC 's well known position , and they did it anyway .
And now you and other Microsoft shills are whining when Microsoft 's bluff was called .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera is being a crybaby.
How, exactly?
How is reporting a crime being a crybaby?
And isn't it interesting that you accuse Opera of being a crybaby, while at the same time are crying over Microsoft being taken to task for their illegal actions?
Hypocrite, are we?
:)Ballot screen for a browser is BS.
How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run?
That remains to be determined, now doesn't it?
There are many criteria that can be used.
In practice, everyone knows that the likely browsers to be bundled are IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and possibly Safari.
It really isn't that difficult.The only sane way for MS to comply was to remove IE.
And they did that and still the whining continues.
No, removing IE was not the sane option [channelregister.co.uk] at all.
In fact, the EC signaled months ago [channelregister.co.uk] that a browser ballot was the most likely outcome.
Microsoft knows that removing IE was not an acceptable remedy, but they tried to game the process.
They failed.
Microsoft knew that the EC wasn't going to accept it because of the EC's well known position, and they did it anyway.
And now you and other Microsoft shills are whining when Microsoft's bluff was called.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309441</id>
	<title>absolutely agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244826660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i completely agree with this. im fucking sick to death of the EU on this subject.</p><p>i just want to be able to open an internet browser without having to fuck about clicking on which i want. they are all the same, the one preinstalled is good enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i completely agree with this .
im fucking sick to death of the EU on this subject.i just want to be able to open an internet browser without having to fuck about clicking on which i want .
they are all the same , the one preinstalled is good enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i completely agree with this.
im fucking sick to death of the EU on this subject.i just want to be able to open an internet browser without having to fuck about clicking on which i want.
they are all the same, the one preinstalled is good enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310359</id>
	<title>A bad precedent for litigation?</title>
	<author>101010\_or\_0x2A</author>
	<datestamp>1244830080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really think this is such bullsh**. What law is this breaking? This "monopoly" law that I keep hearing over and over, what defines a monopoly? Over 50.1\% of the overall market share? Im interested to know what happens say 5 years from now if Apple takes over from Microsoft as the "monopoly" holder for desktops, and MS sues Apple over their bundling of Safari. Now does that mean that Apple will have to allow the Windows versions of all Microsoft products to run on their hardware? Or even better, allow MacOSX to be installed on non-Mac hardware? I think the MS bashing, while great fun to watch, is getting a bit ridiculous, and MS should sue the EC for unfair business practices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really think this is such bullsh * * .
What law is this breaking ?
This " monopoly " law that I keep hearing over and over , what defines a monopoly ?
Over 50.1 \ % of the overall market share ?
Im interested to know what happens say 5 years from now if Apple takes over from Microsoft as the " monopoly " holder for desktops , and MS sues Apple over their bundling of Safari .
Now does that mean that Apple will have to allow the Windows versions of all Microsoft products to run on their hardware ?
Or even better , allow MacOSX to be installed on non-Mac hardware ?
I think the MS bashing , while great fun to watch , is getting a bit ridiculous , and MS should sue the EC for unfair business practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really think this is such bullsh**.
What law is this breaking?
This "monopoly" law that I keep hearing over and over, what defines a monopoly?
Over 50.1\% of the overall market share?
Im interested to know what happens say 5 years from now if Apple takes over from Microsoft as the "monopoly" holder for desktops, and MS sues Apple over their bundling of Safari.
Now does that mean that Apple will have to allow the Windows versions of all Microsoft products to run on their hardware?
Or even better, allow MacOSX to be installed on non-Mac hardware?
I think the MS bashing, while great fun to watch, is getting a bit ridiculous, and MS should sue the EC for unfair business practices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28313637</id>
	<title>All I want to know is...</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1244798940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people is Microsoft paying to post "how terrible this is"? And anything along those lines.</p><p>As the saying goes:</p><p>Karma is a b!tch!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people is Microsoft paying to post " how terrible this is " ?
And anything along those lines.As the saying goes : Karma is a b ! tch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people is Microsoft paying to post "how terrible this is"?
And anything along those lines.As the saying goes:Karma is a b!tch!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310679</id>
	<title>'genuine consumer choice,'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> 'genuine consumer choice,'   Wouldn't this also mean that the customer chose to buy this computer with this software? They should only be arguing with PC manufactures who chose to only sell there systems with Microsoft Windows.  There the ones not gicing the consumer a choice. Every operating system comes with a browser.  If they didn't how would they get online to download a browser they'd prefer.</p><p>Stop complaining and stop trying to sue everyone that's making money while your not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'genuine consumer choice, ' Would n't this also mean that the customer chose to buy this computer with this software ?
They should only be arguing with PC manufactures who chose to only sell there systems with Microsoft Windows .
There the ones not gicing the consumer a choice .
Every operating system comes with a browser .
If they did n't how would they get online to download a browser they 'd prefer.Stop complaining and stop trying to sue everyone that 's making money while your not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'genuine consumer choice,'   Wouldn't this also mean that the customer chose to buy this computer with this software?
They should only be arguing with PC manufactures who chose to only sell there systems with Microsoft Windows.
There the ones not gicing the consumer a choice.
Every operating system comes with a browser.
If they didn't how would they get online to download a browser they'd prefer.Stop complaining and stop trying to sue everyone that's making money while your not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309837</id>
	<title>Why does this feel like schlong swinging?</title>
	<author>SuperCharlie</author>
	<datestamp>1244828040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Argue the right or wrong about MS and the browser bundling.. ok. but when MS says..ok.. we'll NOT do what you said we are doing and thats not good enough.. it just seems like a piss fight that the EC *knows* they can win and will make it unbearably obvious for the mere purpose of rubbing MS (and by inference the US) nose in it. We're big, we're bad. and we make a difference now that we're all together. I think it ticked em off when MS said fine we wont squirm for you any more, we'll just screw you back with no browser at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Argue the right or wrong about MS and the browser bundling.. ok. but when MS says..ok.. we 'll NOT do what you said we are doing and thats not good enough.. it just seems like a piss fight that the EC * knows * they can win and will make it unbearably obvious for the mere purpose of rubbing MS ( and by inference the US ) nose in it .
We 're big , we 're bad .
and we make a difference now that we 're all together .
I think it ticked em off when MS said fine we wont squirm for you any more , we 'll just screw you back with no browser at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Argue the right or wrong about MS and the browser bundling.. ok. but when MS says..ok.. we'll NOT do what you said we are doing and thats not good enough.. it just seems like a piss fight that the EC *knows* they can win and will make it unbearably obvious for the mere purpose of rubbing MS (and by inference the US) nose in it.
We're big, we're bad.
and we make a difference now that we're all together.
I think it ticked em off when MS said fine we wont squirm for you any more, we'll just screw you back with no browser at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28312409</id>
	<title>oo7-maverick</title>
	<author>oo7-maverick</author>
	<datestamp>1244837820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ladies and Gentlemen, the solution to the Microsoft IE issue is realistically simple. If Microsoft is violating the Anti-Trust Law because it imposes the use of their browser on the Public when they purchase the Windows software, it follows that the removal of said browser places Microsoft well within the Anti-Trust Law. Now, for the Courts to turn and demand that Microsoft provide &#226;oemultiple browser choices&#226; as a remedy, may satisfy the quest for vengeance of a certain group out their, but it also causes the public to have unsubstantiated guarantee that Microsoft considers said browsers to be on the same level of compatibility with their Windows product as their IE browser. Furthermore, the displaying of a &#226;oe Warning&#226; prior to choosing a browser other than the Microsoft IE, will, for the most part, in our &#226;oefast food drive-thru&#226; generation go unheeded and overlooked, leading to many dissatisfied customers.

The realistically simple solution is for the individual browser companies to supply a CD-disk with a closed label warning that must be tarred to open, and a user-manual with support telephone numbers included that Microsoft can place within their product box. Providing these items assures that Microsoft stays within the Law and provides browser choice for their Windows product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ladies and Gentlemen , the solution to the Microsoft IE issue is realistically simple .
If Microsoft is violating the Anti-Trust Law because it imposes the use of their browser on the Public when they purchase the Windows software , it follows that the removal of said browser places Microsoft well within the Anti-Trust Law .
Now , for the Courts to turn and demand that Microsoft provide   oemultiple browser choices   as a remedy , may satisfy the quest for vengeance of a certain group out their , but it also causes the public to have unsubstantiated guarantee that Microsoft considers said browsers to be on the same level of compatibility with their Windows product as their IE browser .
Furthermore , the displaying of a   oe Warning   prior to choosing a browser other than the Microsoft IE , will , for the most part , in our   oefast food drive-thru   generation go unheeded and overlooked , leading to many dissatisfied customers .
The realistically simple solution is for the individual browser companies to supply a CD-disk with a closed label warning that must be tarred to open , and a user-manual with support telephone numbers included that Microsoft can place within their product box .
Providing these items assures that Microsoft stays within the Law and provides browser choice for their Windows product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ladies and Gentlemen, the solution to the Microsoft IE issue is realistically simple.
If Microsoft is violating the Anti-Trust Law because it imposes the use of their browser on the Public when they purchase the Windows software, it follows that the removal of said browser places Microsoft well within the Anti-Trust Law.
Now, for the Courts to turn and demand that Microsoft provide âoemultiple browser choicesâ as a remedy, may satisfy the quest for vengeance of a certain group out their, but it also causes the public to have unsubstantiated guarantee that Microsoft considers said browsers to be on the same level of compatibility with their Windows product as their IE browser.
Furthermore, the displaying of a âoe Warningâ prior to choosing a browser other than the Microsoft IE, will, for the most part, in our âoefast food drive-thruâ generation go unheeded and overlooked, leading to many dissatisfied customers.
The realistically simple solution is for the individual browser companies to supply a CD-disk with a closed label warning that must be tarred to open, and a user-manual with support telephone numbers included that Microsoft can place within their product box.
Providing these items assures that Microsoft stays within the Law and provides browser choice for their Windows product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28313099</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1244840160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree completely. I don't use IE myself, but the EC's position that MS should not only not bundle their own browser, but instead bundle *competing* browsers is inane. I'm not a gung-ho laissez-faire capitalist, but forcing companies to promote competing products is over the line.</p></div><p>Maybe you're forgetting, this is punishment for a crime. Your argument is like saying it is inane to force someone to sign their house over to another and then spend three years in a small room. That's perfectly true unless they've been caught extorting money for years from the guy they're supposed to sigh the house over to.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All I'd like to see is the option to uninstall cleanly, not a mandatory release of a browser-less (read: near useless) OS.</p></div><p>The EU is not mandating that, it's MS's idea. Your goals are not the goals of the EU commission who is charged with stopping particular crimes and creating remedies to restore the market to proper operation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely .
I do n't use IE myself , but the EC 's position that MS should not only not bundle their own browser , but instead bundle * competing * browsers is inane .
I 'm not a gung-ho laissez-faire capitalist , but forcing companies to promote competing products is over the line.Maybe you 're forgetting , this is punishment for a crime .
Your argument is like saying it is inane to force someone to sign their house over to another and then spend three years in a small room .
That 's perfectly true unless they 've been caught extorting money for years from the guy they 're supposed to sigh the house over to.All I 'd like to see is the option to uninstall cleanly , not a mandatory release of a browser-less ( read : near useless ) OS.The EU is not mandating that , it 's MS 's idea .
Your goals are not the goals of the EU commission who is charged with stopping particular crimes and creating remedies to restore the market to proper operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely.
I don't use IE myself, but the EC's position that MS should not only not bundle their own browser, but instead bundle *competing* browsers is inane.
I'm not a gung-ho laissez-faire capitalist, but forcing companies to promote competing products is over the line.Maybe you're forgetting, this is punishment for a crime.
Your argument is like saying it is inane to force someone to sign their house over to another and then spend three years in a small room.
That's perfectly true unless they've been caught extorting money for years from the guy they're supposed to sigh the house over to.All I'd like to see is the option to uninstall cleanly, not a mandatory release of a browser-less (read: near useless) OS.The EU is not mandating that, it's MS's idea.
Your goals are not the goals of the EU commission who is charged with stopping particular crimes and creating remedies to restore the market to proper operation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309595</id>
	<title>Hugo Ch&#195;vez ...is that you?</title>
	<author>cockpitcomp</author>
	<datestamp>1244827200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When did Venezuela join the EU?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When did Venezuela join the EU ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did Venezuela join the EU?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309827</id>
	<title>Re:Give the EU a break</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244827980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft isn't really an American company, they have offices, design centers, and so on all over the world and can safely be considered multinational.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is n't really an American company , they have offices , design centers , and so on all over the world and can safely be considered multinational .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft isn't really an American company, they have offices, design centers, and so on all over the world and can safely be considered multinational.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>the\_humeister</author>
	<datestamp>1244829000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That wouldn't actually be a bad idea. When the user first turns on the computer, a screen should pop up with the following:</p><p>As a result of recent EU regulations, please choose a preferred internet browser.</p><ul><li>IE</li><li>Firefox</li><li>Google Chrome</li><li>Opera</li><li>Safari</li><li>Netscape</li><li>SeaMonkey</li><li>K-Meleon</li><li>Amaya</li><li>Maxthon</li><li>Flock</li><li>Slim</li><li>KidRocket</li><li>PhaseOut</li><li>Crazy Browser</li><li>Smart Bro</li><li>ShenzBrowser</li><li>JonDoFox</li><li>Avant</li><li>xB</li><li>Sleipnir</li><li>spacetime</li><li>Browser3D</li><li>3B Room</li><li>Bitty</li><li>Grail</li><li>Lynx</li><li>Happy Browser</li></ul><p>That should get people riled up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would n't actually be a bad idea .
When the user first turns on the computer , a screen should pop up with the following : As a result of recent EU regulations , please choose a preferred internet browser.IEFirefoxGoogle ChromeOperaSafariNetscapeSeaMonkeyK-MeleonAmayaMaxthonFlockSlimKidRocketPhaseOutCrazy BrowserSmart BroShenzBrowserJonDoFoxAvantxBSleipnirspacetimeBrowser3D3B RoomBittyGrailLynxHappy BrowserThat should get people riled up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That wouldn't actually be a bad idea.
When the user first turns on the computer, a screen should pop up with the following:As a result of recent EU regulations, please choose a preferred internet browser.IEFirefoxGoogle ChromeOperaSafariNetscapeSeaMonkeyK-MeleonAmayaMaxthonFlockSlimKidRocketPhaseOutCrazy BrowserSmart BroShenzBrowserJonDoFoxAvantxBSleipnirspacetimeBrowser3D3B RoomBittyGrailLynxHappy BrowserThat should get people riled up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311989</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an idea. Microsoft should say goodbye.</title>
	<author>meringuoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244836320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If I were the head of Microsoft I'd be tempted to simply say, "Fine. Goodbye" and pull all Microsoft products off the shelves permanently.</i>

<p>Then you'd be an idiot. One of the nice things about sovereignty is you can do whatever the fuck you like. Like, say, declaring certain formerly copyright software to be public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were the head of Microsoft I 'd be tempted to simply say , " Fine .
Goodbye " and pull all Microsoft products off the shelves permanently .
Then you 'd be an idiot .
One of the nice things about sovereignty is you can do whatever the fuck you like .
Like , say , declaring certain formerly copyright software to be public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were the head of Microsoft I'd be tempted to simply say, "Fine.
Goodbye" and pull all Microsoft products off the shelves permanently.
Then you'd be an idiot.
One of the nice things about sovereignty is you can do whatever the fuck you like.
Like, say, declaring certain formerly copyright software to be public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309351</id>
	<title>"MS breaking the law by bundling IE.."?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244826360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I may be well behind on my law knowledge, but what law is this breaking? I mean I understand if MS prevented other browsers from being installed on Windows, but is this not similar to, for example, having a default terminal in Ubuntu that ships with the distribution, and the user has a choice to use their own any time they choose?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be well behind on my law knowledge , but what law is this breaking ?
I mean I understand if MS prevented other browsers from being installed on Windows , but is this not similar to , for example , having a default terminal in Ubuntu that ships with the distribution , and the user has a choice to use their own any time they choose ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be well behind on my law knowledge, but what law is this breaking?
I mean I understand if MS prevented other browsers from being installed on Windows, but is this not similar to, for example, having a default terminal in Ubuntu that ships with the distribution, and the user has a choice to use their own any time they choose?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28315977</id>
	<title>Re:Give the EU a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244813040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dunno. Maybe by fining European companies much more than Microsoft? Wait...they've already done that.</p><p>No, but seriously - do you have any comprehension of how huge the EU budget is? The fine(s) on MS isn't even a drop in the ocean. Besides, they're not even in as bad a recession as the US (yet).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dunno .
Maybe by fining European companies much more than Microsoft ?
Wait...they 've already done that.No , but seriously - do you have any comprehension of how huge the EU budget is ?
The fine ( s ) on MS is n't even a drop in the ocean .
Besides , they 're not even in as bad a recession as the US ( yet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dunno.
Maybe by fining European companies much more than Microsoft?
Wait...they've already done that.No, but seriously - do you have any comprehension of how huge the EU budget is?
The fine(s) on MS isn't even a drop in the ocean.
Besides, they're not even in as bad a recession as the US (yet).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310697</id>
	<title>Re:Let me see if I have this right...</title>
	<author>albacrankie</author>
	<datestamp>1244831520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

No, you don't have it right.  You got it wrong at this point:

 -- The EC says "Yeah, you're right! Ok MS, take out the bundled browser"


They said something along the lines of "Offer users a choice of browser."</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you do n't have it right .
You got it wrong at this point : -- The EC says " Yeah , you 're right !
Ok MS , take out the bundled browser " They said something along the lines of " Offer users a choice of browser .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

No, you don't have it right.
You got it wrong at this point:

 -- The EC says "Yeah, you're right!
Ok MS, take out the bundled browser"


They said something along the lines of "Offer users a choice of browser.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310851</id>
	<title>EC AntiTrust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244832000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key to me is more of 'us against them' ie: the EU against the US. Yes there have been actions against European cos, but the bulk of suits are against MSFT, followed by Intel, Apple and several Chinese and Jaspanese companies The EU is exhibiting phobic behavior akin to pre WWII behavior, only on a "legal" basis. Maybe the US, China and Japan need to react accordingly with European companies, although the current US political climate will dictate otherwise. What is wrong with packaging YOUR browser in YOUR OS? Why share your MP codecs without reciprocity?????? This whole affair stinks of protectionism.Shall we in the US tell Mercedes that they need to showcase frod, chevy and toyota in their dealerships? Maybe the Commerce Dept needs to stepup to the plate and do their job of helping Am business overseas</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key to me is more of 'us against them ' ie : the EU against the US .
Yes there have been actions against European cos , but the bulk of suits are against MSFT , followed by Intel , Apple and several Chinese and Jaspanese companies The EU is exhibiting phobic behavior akin to pre WWII behavior , only on a " legal " basis .
Maybe the US , China and Japan need to react accordingly with European companies , although the current US political climate will dictate otherwise .
What is wrong with packaging YOUR browser in YOUR OS ?
Why share your MP codecs without reciprocity ? ? ? ? ? ?
This whole affair stinks of protectionism.Shall we in the US tell Mercedes that they need to showcase frod , chevy and toyota in their dealerships ?
Maybe the Commerce Dept needs to stepup to the plate and do their job of helping Am business overseas</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key to me is more of 'us against them' ie: the EU against the US.
Yes there have been actions against European cos, but the bulk of suits are against MSFT, followed by Intel, Apple and several Chinese and Jaspanese companies The EU is exhibiting phobic behavior akin to pre WWII behavior, only on a "legal" basis.
Maybe the US, China and Japan need to react accordingly with European companies, although the current US political climate will dictate otherwise.
What is wrong with packaging YOUR browser in YOUR OS?
Why share your MP codecs without reciprocity??????
This whole affair stinks of protectionism.Shall we in the US tell Mercedes that they need to showcase frod, chevy and toyota in their dealerships?
Maybe the Commerce Dept needs to stepup to the plate and do their job of helping Am business overseas</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309463</id>
	<title>Give the EU a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244826720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, have you seen the economy lately? How else are they supposed to have a balanced budget without leveling massive fines on American companies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , have you seen the economy lately ?
How else are they supposed to have a balanced budget without leveling massive fines on American companies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, have you seen the economy lately?
How else are they supposed to have a balanced budget without leveling massive fines on American companies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28322297</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1244886420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>your saying that whatever OS is the most popular at the moment is commiting a crime by pushing their own products?</p></div><p>That's not what the law says at all. What the law says if any one company or trust gains overwhelming market share in any market (in this case desktop OS's) they are forbidden from bundling and tying products from other, preexisting markets with that monopolized product. So if MS had 40\% of the desktop OS market, Apple had 30\% and Redhat had 30\% all of them would be allowed to bundle anything they wanted with their OS. </p><p>The reason for these laws is simple. When you have huge amounts of influence in a market you have power over your customers. That power can be used to push inferior products in other markets. For example, for years IE has been by far the worst browser on the market, yet the most popular. For years no real progress has been made in Web technologies because MS would not implement it in IE so Web developers could not use those new technologies. Other browser makers could implement them, but had no motivation since they knew Web developers couldn't use them. The whole market slowed to a crawl, which is very unusual for a technological market especially one experiencing enormous growth. Any reasonable person 10 years ago would have assumed we'd have native video and audio tags by now as well as vector graphics, 3D Web environments, etc. Standards for these technologies were written up as drafts 10 years ago, then it all came to a screeching halt.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>HOW they pushed them may have been unethical...</p></div><p>It was more than that; it was illegal.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but just how has IE hurt browser innovation?</p></div><p>I think I've covered that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Opera,Chrome,Firefox...all better the IE.</p></div><p>All better objectively. That doesn't mean they're better for given user because they are all artificially broken by MS. The number of IE specific Web pages and applications in existence all make those browsers inferior for many people. That's a direct result of MS's crime. The fact that OEMs don't preinstall other browsers instead of IE is the direct result of MS's crime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>your saying that whatever OS is the most popular at the moment is commiting a crime by pushing their own products ? That 's not what the law says at all .
What the law says if any one company or trust gains overwhelming market share in any market ( in this case desktop OS 's ) they are forbidden from bundling and tying products from other , preexisting markets with that monopolized product .
So if MS had 40 \ % of the desktop OS market , Apple had 30 \ % and Redhat had 30 \ % all of them would be allowed to bundle anything they wanted with their OS .
The reason for these laws is simple .
When you have huge amounts of influence in a market you have power over your customers .
That power can be used to push inferior products in other markets .
For example , for years IE has been by far the worst browser on the market , yet the most popular .
For years no real progress has been made in Web technologies because MS would not implement it in IE so Web developers could not use those new technologies .
Other browser makers could implement them , but had no motivation since they knew Web developers could n't use them .
The whole market slowed to a crawl , which is very unusual for a technological market especially one experiencing enormous growth .
Any reasonable person 10 years ago would have assumed we 'd have native video and audio tags by now as well as vector graphics , 3D Web environments , etc .
Standards for these technologies were written up as drafts 10 years ago , then it all came to a screeching halt.HOW they pushed them may have been unethical...It was more than that ; it was illegal .
...but just how has IE hurt browser innovation ? I think I 've covered that.Opera,Chrome,Firefox...all better the IE.All better objectively .
That does n't mean they 're better for given user because they are all artificially broken by MS. The number of IE specific Web pages and applications in existence all make those browsers inferior for many people .
That 's a direct result of MS 's crime .
The fact that OEMs do n't preinstall other browsers instead of IE is the direct result of MS 's crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your saying that whatever OS is the most popular at the moment is commiting a crime by pushing their own products?That's not what the law says at all.
What the law says if any one company or trust gains overwhelming market share in any market (in this case desktop OS's) they are forbidden from bundling and tying products from other, preexisting markets with that monopolized product.
So if MS had 40\% of the desktop OS market, Apple had 30\% and Redhat had 30\% all of them would be allowed to bundle anything they wanted with their OS.
The reason for these laws is simple.
When you have huge amounts of influence in a market you have power over your customers.
That power can be used to push inferior products in other markets.
For example, for years IE has been by far the worst browser on the market, yet the most popular.
For years no real progress has been made in Web technologies because MS would not implement it in IE so Web developers could not use those new technologies.
Other browser makers could implement them, but had no motivation since they knew Web developers couldn't use them.
The whole market slowed to a crawl, which is very unusual for a technological market especially one experiencing enormous growth.
Any reasonable person 10 years ago would have assumed we'd have native video and audio tags by now as well as vector graphics, 3D Web environments, etc.
Standards for these technologies were written up as drafts 10 years ago, then it all came to a screeching halt.HOW they pushed them may have been unethical...It was more than that; it was illegal.
...but just how has IE hurt browser innovation?I think I've covered that.Opera,Chrome,Firefox...all better the IE.All better objectively.
That doesn't mean they're better for given user because they are all artificially broken by MS. The number of IE specific Web pages and applications in existence all make those browsers inferior for many people.
That's a direct result of MS's crime.
The fact that OEMs don't preinstall other browsers instead of IE is the direct result of MS's crime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28319271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311085</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244832840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Antitrust, I say! Antitrust!</p><p>Why is IE on the top of that list?  It could have been alphabetical, but it isn't and it's too late to change it.</p><p>Prepare for litigation, sir!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Antitrust , I say !
Antitrust ! Why is IE on the top of that list ?
It could have been alphabetical , but it is n't and it 's too late to change it.Prepare for litigation , sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Antitrust, I say!
Antitrust!Why is IE on the top of that list?
It could have been alphabetical, but it isn't and it's too late to change it.Prepare for litigation, sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28312085</id>
	<title>Re:Let me see if I have this right...</title>
	<author>Entropy\_ajb</author>
	<datestamp>1244836620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are missing one important fact.  The usage stats you quoted are only for visitors to w3cshools.com.  At the bottom of the page they even admit that the actual market share for IE is close to 80\%.</p><p>That said, I agree with your main points about the EU being completely ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are missing one important fact .
The usage stats you quoted are only for visitors to w3cshools.com .
At the bottom of the page they even admit that the actual market share for IE is close to 80 \ % .That said , I agree with your main points about the EU being completely ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are missing one important fact.
The usage stats you quoted are only for visitors to w3cshools.com.
At the bottom of the page they even admit that the actual market share for IE is close to 80\%.That said, I agree with your main points about the EU being completely ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310821</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1244831880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot OffByOne.</p><p><a href="http://offbyone.com/offbyone/" title="offbyone.com" rel="nofollow">http://offbyone.com/offbyone/</a> [offbyone.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot OffByOne.http : //offbyone.com/offbyone/ [ offbyone.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot OffByOne.http://offbyone.com/offbyone/ [offbyone.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309911</id>
	<title>Re:Honestly you lack fantasy...</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1244828280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, I agree with EU.

American antitrust is proven not to work. Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing. Zero. Nada.



This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers.

How do I browse the above web page?

With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page.

I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do...

And if you think carefully is the <b>only</b> way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE. Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it. At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years?

Be honest: do you <b>really</b> think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE?

Your idea sounds ridiculous(as you admit), because it IS ridiculous. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run?

If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice? What order will the browsers be listed in?



Cheers,</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I agree with EU .
American antitrust is proven not to work .
Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you , americans , did nothing .
Zero. Nada .
This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers .
How do I browse the above web page ?
With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page .
I know it sounds ridicolous , but it 's what the EU will force MS to do.. . And if you think carefully is the only way MS ca n't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE .
Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it .
At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years ?
Be honest : do you really think that if MS will leave ( so called ) free choice to PC vendors , behind , those will be forced to embed IE ?
Your idea sounds ridiculous ( as you admit ) , because it IS ridiculous .
How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run ?
If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice ?
What order will the browsers be listed in ?
Cheers ,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I agree with EU.
American antitrust is proven not to work.
Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing.
Zero. Nada.
This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers.
How do I browse the above web page?
With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page.
I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do...

And if you think carefully is the only way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE.
Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it.
At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years?
Be honest: do you really think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE?
Your idea sounds ridiculous(as you admit), because it IS ridiculous.
How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run?
If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice?
What order will the browsers be listed in?
Cheers,
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310793</id>
	<title>Re:Let me see if I have this right...</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1244831820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed the point.  The EU are still in the middle of the antitrust case so they have decided to let that continue rather than stop the progress of the case because of Microsofts statement.  They have not said what they want Microsoft to do at all yet, though it is of course heavily implied that something like unbundling the browser would be an outcome.  It is like a normal court case where even if the defendant pleads guilty the case continues because they want to sort out sentencing and do things properly.  In this case Microsoft appear to have admitted they are guilty and chosen their own sentence but the EU want to actually go through the case themselves so it is done properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed the point .
The EU are still in the middle of the antitrust case so they have decided to let that continue rather than stop the progress of the case because of Microsofts statement .
They have not said what they want Microsoft to do at all yet , though it is of course heavily implied that something like unbundling the browser would be an outcome .
It is like a normal court case where even if the defendant pleads guilty the case continues because they want to sort out sentencing and do things properly .
In this case Microsoft appear to have admitted they are guilty and chosen their own sentence but the EU want to actually go through the case themselves so it is done properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed the point.
The EU are still in the middle of the antitrust case so they have decided to let that continue rather than stop the progress of the case because of Microsofts statement.
They have not said what they want Microsoft to do at all yet, though it is of course heavily implied that something like unbundling the browser would be an outcome.
It is like a normal court case where even if the defendant pleads guilty the case continues because they want to sort out sentencing and do things properly.
In this case Microsoft appear to have admitted they are guilty and chosen their own sentence but the EU want to actually go through the case themselves so it is done properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28319041</id>
	<title>This has gone too far</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244899080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a European, and even I see how ridiculous this has become.  Microsoft muscled out web browsing companies by providing IE "free" with their OS (actually the costs of the OS include the development and maintenance of IE), but if they strip out the browser from the OS AND pay a monsterous fine then I don't see how it could be any more of an issue. They certainly should not have to include competitor's programs.</p><p>What about Apple and their MAC OS email, web browser etc that they include for "free"?</p><p>It's a crazy situation.  The victims of the browser thing aren't even getting proceeds of the fine.  It's just another way for the politicians to get fat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a European , and even I see how ridiculous this has become .
Microsoft muscled out web browsing companies by providing IE " free " with their OS ( actually the costs of the OS include the development and maintenance of IE ) , but if they strip out the browser from the OS AND pay a monsterous fine then I do n't see how it could be any more of an issue .
They certainly should not have to include competitor 's programs.What about Apple and their MAC OS email , web browser etc that they include for " free " ? It 's a crazy situation .
The victims of the browser thing are n't even getting proceeds of the fine .
It 's just another way for the politicians to get fat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a European, and even I see how ridiculous this has become.
Microsoft muscled out web browsing companies by providing IE "free" with their OS (actually the costs of the OS include the development and maintenance of IE), but if they strip out the browser from the OS AND pay a monsterous fine then I don't see how it could be any more of an issue.
They certainly should not have to include competitor's programs.What about Apple and their MAC OS email, web browser etc that they include for "free"?It's a crazy situation.
The victims of the browser thing aren't even getting proceeds of the fine.
It's just another way for the politicians to get fat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737</id>
	<title>Let me see if I have this right...</title>
	<author>zoomba</author>
	<datestamp>1244827740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, Microsoft is found guilty of abusing its position of controlling the currently most popular PC OS on the market.  Through bundling and anti-competitive practices they're nailed for being a monopoly.</p><p>The media player gets stripped out per an earlier EC case.</p><p>Now, in 2007, Opera complains about the browser bundling, saying that it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage in the browser wars.  The EC says "Yeah, you're right!  Ok MS, take out the bundled browser"</p><p>Microsoft complies, stripping out the IE user application from copies of Windows 7 to be distributed in Europe.</p><p>Opera and the EC, faced with getting exactly what they asked for, are now mad again because what they REALLY wanted Microsoft to do was to bundle a competing product with the base OS.  They don't want a level playing field, they want to tip the scales in their favor (specifically to Opera).</p><p>I'm sorry, but there is a line being crossed here where we went from semi-valid to out-right ridiculous.  Strip down the OS, fine.  Let the OEMs decide what browser to install on a system.  Let retailers sell $5 CDs containing Firefox, Opera, Safari etc with their copies of Windows 7.  If you want the OS to be a neutral platform for applications, then it has to be just that.  If you try to mandate what browser IS bundled, you're defeating the whole point and just creating a new monopoly for whoever the lucky guy is whose browser you choose (likely Opera).</p><p>Considering current browser usage statistics, I think the entire browser monopoly concept is antiquated.  With IE currently holding around 41\% of the total market, and Firefox with 47\% (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers\_stats.asp) it's pretty clear that a) it's not a monopoly anymore and b) bundling is not hurting other browsers.</p><p>What this really feels like is Opera is tired of being in last place (and probably especially pissed that up-start Chrome blew past them in just a month or two) and instead of capturing marketshare with a more compelling product, they're going to try and legislate themselves into a stronger market position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , Microsoft is found guilty of abusing its position of controlling the currently most popular PC OS on the market .
Through bundling and anti-competitive practices they 're nailed for being a monopoly.The media player gets stripped out per an earlier EC case.Now , in 2007 , Opera complains about the browser bundling , saying that it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage in the browser wars .
The EC says " Yeah , you 're right !
Ok MS , take out the bundled browser " Microsoft complies , stripping out the IE user application from copies of Windows 7 to be distributed in Europe.Opera and the EC , faced with getting exactly what they asked for , are now mad again because what they REALLY wanted Microsoft to do was to bundle a competing product with the base OS .
They do n't want a level playing field , they want to tip the scales in their favor ( specifically to Opera ) .I 'm sorry , but there is a line being crossed here where we went from semi-valid to out-right ridiculous .
Strip down the OS , fine .
Let the OEMs decide what browser to install on a system .
Let retailers sell $ 5 CDs containing Firefox , Opera , Safari etc with their copies of Windows 7 .
If you want the OS to be a neutral platform for applications , then it has to be just that .
If you try to mandate what browser IS bundled , you 're defeating the whole point and just creating a new monopoly for whoever the lucky guy is whose browser you choose ( likely Opera ) .Considering current browser usage statistics , I think the entire browser monopoly concept is antiquated .
With IE currently holding around 41 \ % of the total market , and Firefox with 47 \ % ( http : //www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers \ _stats.asp ) it 's pretty clear that a ) it 's not a monopoly anymore and b ) bundling is not hurting other browsers.What this really feels like is Opera is tired of being in last place ( and probably especially pissed that up-start Chrome blew past them in just a month or two ) and instead of capturing marketshare with a more compelling product , they 're going to try and legislate themselves into a stronger market position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, Microsoft is found guilty of abusing its position of controlling the currently most popular PC OS on the market.
Through bundling and anti-competitive practices they're nailed for being a monopoly.The media player gets stripped out per an earlier EC case.Now, in 2007, Opera complains about the browser bundling, saying that it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage in the browser wars.
The EC says "Yeah, you're right!
Ok MS, take out the bundled browser"Microsoft complies, stripping out the IE user application from copies of Windows 7 to be distributed in Europe.Opera and the EC, faced with getting exactly what they asked for, are now mad again because what they REALLY wanted Microsoft to do was to bundle a competing product with the base OS.
They don't want a level playing field, they want to tip the scales in their favor (specifically to Opera).I'm sorry, but there is a line being crossed here where we went from semi-valid to out-right ridiculous.
Strip down the OS, fine.
Let the OEMs decide what browser to install on a system.
Let retailers sell $5 CDs containing Firefox, Opera, Safari etc with their copies of Windows 7.
If you want the OS to be a neutral platform for applications, then it has to be just that.
If you try to mandate what browser IS bundled, you're defeating the whole point and just creating a new monopoly for whoever the lucky guy is whose browser you choose (likely Opera).Considering current browser usage statistics, I think the entire browser monopoly concept is antiquated.
With IE currently holding around 41\% of the total market, and Firefox with 47\% (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers\_stats.asp) it's pretty clear that a) it's not a monopoly anymore and b) bundling is not hurting other browsers.What this really feels like is Opera is tired of being in last place (and probably especially pissed that up-start Chrome blew past them in just a month or two) and instead of capturing marketshare with a more compelling product, they're going to try and legislate themselves into a stronger market position.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28316157</id>
	<title>MS must be desperate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244814540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by the looks of the number of their shills here.  The number of people who profess their misunderstanding, or demonstrate their deliberate, willful, ignorance of the concepts involved in antitrust law, must be exceeding 50\%.  This is an incredibly high percentage for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'s target user group.  My bet is that the demonstrated ignorance of antitrust issues is here is greater than that found in the general public.</p><p>To me this shows a purposeful, coordinated agenda by the anti-EC and pro-MS posters here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by the looks of the number of their shills here .
The number of people who profess their misunderstanding , or demonstrate their deliberate , willful , ignorance of the concepts involved in antitrust law , must be exceeding 50 \ % .
This is an incredibly high percentage for / .
's target user group .
My bet is that the demonstrated ignorance of antitrust issues is here is greater than that found in the general public.To me this shows a purposeful , coordinated agenda by the anti-EC and pro-MS posters here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by the looks of the number of their shills here.
The number of people who profess their misunderstanding, or demonstrate their deliberate, willful, ignorance of the concepts involved in antitrust law, must be exceeding 50\%.
This is an incredibly high percentage for /.
's target user group.
My bet is that the demonstrated ignorance of antitrust issues is here is greater than that found in the general public.To me this shows a purposeful, coordinated agenda by the anti-EC and pro-MS posters here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309963</id>
	<title>Re:Honestly you lack fantasy...</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1244828460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, I agree with EU.

American antitrust is proven not to work. Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing. Zero. Nada.



This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers.

How do I browse the above web page?

With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page.

I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do...

And if you think carefully is the <b>only</b> way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE. Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it. At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years?

Be honest: do you <b>really</b> think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE?



Cheers,</p></div><p>Oops, messed the previous reply up with the quote tags. Here we go again.

Your idea sounds ridiculous(as you admit), because it IS ridiculous. How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run? If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice? What order will the browsers be listed in?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I agree with EU .
American antitrust is proven not to work .
Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you , americans , did nothing .
Zero. Nada .
This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers .
How do I browse the above web page ?
With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page .
I know it sounds ridicolous , but it 's what the EU will force MS to do.. . And if you think carefully is the only way MS ca n't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE .
Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it .
At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years ?
Be honest : do you really think that if MS will leave ( so called ) free choice to PC vendors , behind , those will be forced to embed IE ?
Cheers,Oops , messed the previous reply up with the quote tags .
Here we go again .
Your idea sounds ridiculous ( as you admit ) , because it IS ridiculous .
How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run ?
If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice ?
What order will the browsers be listed in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I agree with EU.
American antitrust is proven not to work.
Microsoft always abused of its monopoly position and you, americans, did nothing.
Zero. Nada.
This decision is thought but I think that MS will be forced to provide a simple webpage that will direct the users to the main web-pages of the most diffused browsers.
How do I browse the above web page?
With a simple one page only browser that is allowed only to display that page.
I know it sounds ridicolous, but it's what the EU will force MS to do...

And if you think carefully is the only way MS can't force the PC vendors to embed once again IE.
Sorry guys but we all know that if MS can cheat/bribe they will do it.
At least is what they have done in the latest...15 years?
Be honest: do you really think that if MS will leave (so called) free choice to PC vendors, behind, those will be forced to embed IE?
Cheers,Oops, messed the previous reply up with the quote tags.
Here we go again.
Your idea sounds ridiculous(as you admit), because it IS ridiculous.
How and who will decide what browser choices will you get on the first run?
If I make a browser that sends all the URLs to my server under the guise of anti-phishing can I force MS to bundle it and offer it as a choice?
What order will the browsers be listed in?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311335</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1244833800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems</p></div><p>Apple, Redhat.  Both bundle browsers with their product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systemsApple , Redhat .
Both bundle browsers with their product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systemsApple, Redhat.
Both bundle browsers with their product.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310151</id>
	<title>Re:Let me see if I have this right...</title>
	<author>zkiwi34</author>
	<datestamp>1244829180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, do give me a link to the EC ruling that says what Microsoft is supposed to be doing as a consequence of their "bad behaviour."

Oh wait, the EC hasn't delivered it yet. Ergo, you're more than a little presumptuous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , do give me a link to the EC ruling that says what Microsoft is supposed to be doing as a consequence of their " bad behaviour .
" Oh wait , the EC has n't delivered it yet .
Ergo , you 're more than a little presumptuous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, do give me a link to the EC ruling that says what Microsoft is supposed to be doing as a consequence of their "bad behaviour.
"

Oh wait, the EC hasn't delivered it yet.
Ergo, you're more than a little presumptuous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28316273</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244815560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot w3m, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot w3m , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot w3m, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310661</id>
	<title>Re:Let me see if I have this right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244831340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The really sad thing is that the 47\% market share of Firefox proves that MSFT never had a monopoly. The measures to unbundle IE are just about to start with Windows 7, and only in Europe. Everywhere else, IE has always been bundled with the OS, in theory extending Microsofts alleged monopoly in the desktop space into the browser space. Practically, even if this had been the intention, it clearly didn't happen.</p><p>These vague lawsuits about theoretical software monopolies are a complete scam and a moneygrab.</p><p>Real monopolies control access to the entire resource chain - think Standard Oil: Rockefeller owned all the production companies for oil equipment, and if you even tried to get in on his turf you had a few friendly folks stop by and break your kneecaps.</p><p>For OSes, you could always build your own. Sounds strange, but look at OSX and Ubuntu just for two examples of completely useable desktop operating systems. The interesting bit about the original finding in the American lawsuit was that it constrained the viewpoint to having a monopoly in the constrained space of PC desktop operating systems (discounting both OSX and Unix, because, you know, Unix is a Server operating system). If you constrain the market narrowly enough, you'll always be able to find someone guilty of being a monopoly (Apple clearly has a monopoly in the Apple desktop operating systems space - and boy, are they ever evil in ensuring it stays that way).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The really sad thing is that the 47 \ % market share of Firefox proves that MSFT never had a monopoly .
The measures to unbundle IE are just about to start with Windows 7 , and only in Europe .
Everywhere else , IE has always been bundled with the OS , in theory extending Microsofts alleged monopoly in the desktop space into the browser space .
Practically , even if this had been the intention , it clearly did n't happen.These vague lawsuits about theoretical software monopolies are a complete scam and a moneygrab.Real monopolies control access to the entire resource chain - think Standard Oil : Rockefeller owned all the production companies for oil equipment , and if you even tried to get in on his turf you had a few friendly folks stop by and break your kneecaps.For OSes , you could always build your own .
Sounds strange , but look at OSX and Ubuntu just for two examples of completely useable desktop operating systems .
The interesting bit about the original finding in the American lawsuit was that it constrained the viewpoint to having a monopoly in the constrained space of PC desktop operating systems ( discounting both OSX and Unix , because , you know , Unix is a Server operating system ) .
If you constrain the market narrowly enough , you 'll always be able to find someone guilty of being a monopoly ( Apple clearly has a monopoly in the Apple desktop operating systems space - and boy , are they ever evil in ensuring it stays that way ) .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The really sad thing is that the 47\% market share of Firefox proves that MSFT never had a monopoly.
The measures to unbundle IE are just about to start with Windows 7, and only in Europe.
Everywhere else, IE has always been bundled with the OS, in theory extending Microsofts alleged monopoly in the desktop space into the browser space.
Practically, even if this had been the intention, it clearly didn't happen.These vague lawsuits about theoretical software monopolies are a complete scam and a moneygrab.Real monopolies control access to the entire resource chain - think Standard Oil: Rockefeller owned all the production companies for oil equipment, and if you even tried to get in on his turf you had a few friendly folks stop by and break your kneecaps.For OSes, you could always build your own.
Sounds strange, but look at OSX and Ubuntu just for two examples of completely useable desktop operating systems.
The interesting bit about the original finding in the American lawsuit was that it constrained the viewpoint to having a monopoly in the constrained space of PC desktop operating systems (discounting both OSX and Unix, because, you know, Unix is a Server operating system).
If you constrain the market narrowly enough, you'll always be able to find someone guilty of being a monopoly (Apple clearly has a monopoly in the Apple desktop operating systems space - and boy, are they ever evil in ensuring it stays that way).
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28315363</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244808360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you really thing IE6 deserves its market share?</p></div><p>yes it does. do you really think every net user needs the latest greatest browser?<br>people aren't sitting around going "omgz i got 100 in acid3!!!one!1"<br>and the ones that are are bloody web designer nazi's that complain stuff don't render right in all browsers<br>yet fail to notice that across mozilla, webkit, and opera that stuff doesn't render the same either<br>they also like to forget that css2 had to be revised because it had so many problems with the spec<br>and they complain ie6 isn't css2.1 compliant when the 2.1 spec was released 4 damn years after ie6 launched<br>"omgz i'm soo sorry i didn't predict the damn future and implement css3 back in 1999"</p><p>ie6 is damn close to a decade old now<br>it's <strong>still</strong> a 'good enough' browser for doing exactly what it was intended<br>if people aren't moving away from it, it's because there's no compelling reason for them to do so</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really thing IE6 deserves its market share ? yes it does .
do you really think every net user needs the latest greatest browser ? people are n't sitting around going " omgz i got 100 in acid3 ! !
! one ! 1 " and the ones that are are bloody web designer nazi 's that complain stuff do n't render right in all browsersyet fail to notice that across mozilla , webkit , and opera that stuff does n't render the same eitherthey also like to forget that css2 had to be revised because it had so many problems with the specand they complain ie6 is n't css2.1 compliant when the 2.1 spec was released 4 damn years after ie6 launched " omgz i 'm soo sorry i did n't predict the damn future and implement css3 back in 1999 " ie6 is damn close to a decade old nowit 's still a 'good enough ' browser for doing exactly what it was intendedif people are n't moving away from it , it 's because there 's no compelling reason for them to do so</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really thing IE6 deserves its market share?yes it does.
do you really think every net user needs the latest greatest browser?people aren't sitting around going "omgz i got 100 in acid3!!
!one!1"and the ones that are are bloody web designer nazi's that complain stuff don't render right in all browsersyet fail to notice that across mozilla, webkit, and opera that stuff doesn't render the same eitherthey also like to forget that css2 had to be revised because it had so many problems with the specand they complain ie6 isn't css2.1 compliant when the 2.1 spec was released 4 damn years after ie6 launched"omgz i'm soo sorry i didn't predict the damn future and implement css3 back in 1999"ie6 is damn close to a decade old nowit's still a 'good enough' browser for doing exactly what it was intendedif people aren't moving away from it, it's because there's no compelling reason for them to do so
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310281</id>
	<title>This is why EU sucks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's plain old socialism right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's plain old socialism right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's plain old socialism right there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28324205</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244908020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You meant:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * 3B Room<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Amaya<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Avant<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Bitty<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Browser3D<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Crazy Browser<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Firefox<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Flock<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Google Chrome<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Grail<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Happy Browser<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * IE<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * JonDoFox<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * KidRocket<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * K-Meleon<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Lynx<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Maxthon<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Netscape<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Opera<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * PhaseOut<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Safari<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * SeaMonkey<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * ShenzBrowser<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Sleipnir<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Slim<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Smart Bro<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * spacetime<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * xB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You meant :         * 3B Room         * Amaya         * Avant         * Bitty         * Browser3D         * Crazy Browser         * Firefox         * Flock         * Google Chrome         * Grail         * Happy Browser         * IE         * JonDoFox         * KidRocket         * K-Meleon         * Lynx         * Maxthon         * Netscape         * Opera         * PhaseOut         * Safari         * SeaMonkey         * ShenzBrowser         * Sleipnir         * Slim         * Smart Bro         * spacetime         * xB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You meant:
        * 3B Room
        * Amaya
        * Avant
        * Bitty
        * Browser3D
        * Crazy Browser
        * Firefox
        * Flock
        * Google Chrome
        * Grail
        * Happy Browser
        * IE
        * JonDoFox
        * KidRocket
        * K-Meleon
        * Lynx
        * Maxthon
        * Netscape
        * Opera
        * PhaseOut
        * Safari
        * SeaMonkey
        * ShenzBrowser
        * Sleipnir
        * Slim
        * Smart Bro
        * spacetime
        * xB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309959</id>
	<title>C'mon now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244828400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on.  I mean, who HASN'T been thrilled to at least have SOME browser after a fresh build of a Windows OS?  I mean, at the very least, if you're a Firefox/Opera/etc fan, at least having IE on the box allows you to go download that other browser of choice.</p><p>Would you prefer you had to go digging through the drawers and cabinets for your Firefox installer CD?  Get real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on .
I mean , who HAS N'T been thrilled to at least have SOME browser after a fresh build of a Windows OS ?
I mean , at the very least , if you 're a Firefox/Opera/etc fan , at least having IE on the box allows you to go download that other browser of choice.Would you prefer you had to go digging through the drawers and cabinets for your Firefox installer CD ?
Get real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on.
I mean, who HASN'T been thrilled to at least have SOME browser after a fresh build of a Windows OS?
I mean, at the very least, if you're a Firefox/Opera/etc fan, at least having IE on the box allows you to go download that other browser of choice.Would you prefer you had to go digging through the drawers and cabinets for your Firefox installer CD?
Get real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28315347</id>
	<title>sad... very sad...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244808240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people will say something like "Microsoft broke the law", actually they were found to be a monopoly like 15 years or so ago.  That in itself is not breaking the law.</p><p>
&nbsp; In America, we have a ton of monopolies and they are far worse than Microsoft.</p><p>
&nbsp; I would say having less choices for cable, phone service and Internet service are far worse than Microsoft and Apple is far worse as well.  They can get away with whatever they want.</p><p>
&nbsp; Europe is just horrible.  They are not at all fair to American companies and you know what?  Governments can be monopolies as well right.</p><p>
&nbsp; Microsoft has been trying to do everything it can to please the EU and the EU is still aggressive.</p><p>
&nbsp; I personally would like to give the EU the finger double dipped and put them back to the dark ages again.</p><p>
&nbsp; I am not a Microsoft fan, they made their own bed on the original issue, but now it's a different story.  The only left now is that the EU prevents the sale of windows in Europe.</p><p>
&nbsp; **** Europe.  Let them eat sh*t all the way back to rome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people will say something like " Microsoft broke the law " , actually they were found to be a monopoly like 15 years or so ago .
That in itself is not breaking the law .
  In America , we have a ton of monopolies and they are far worse than Microsoft .
  I would say having less choices for cable , phone service and Internet service are far worse than Microsoft and Apple is far worse as well .
They can get away with whatever they want .
  Europe is just horrible .
They are not at all fair to American companies and you know what ?
Governments can be monopolies as well right .
  Microsoft has been trying to do everything it can to please the EU and the EU is still aggressive .
  I personally would like to give the EU the finger double dipped and put them back to the dark ages again .
  I am not a Microsoft fan , they made their own bed on the original issue , but now it 's a different story .
The only left now is that the EU prevents the sale of windows in Europe .
  * * * * Europe .
Let them eat sh * t all the way back to rome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people will say something like "Microsoft broke the law", actually they were found to be a monopoly like 15 years or so ago.
That in itself is not breaking the law.
  In America, we have a ton of monopolies and they are far worse than Microsoft.
  I would say having less choices for cable, phone service and Internet service are far worse than Microsoft and Apple is far worse as well.
They can get away with whatever they want.
  Europe is just horrible.
They are not at all fair to American companies and you know what?
Governments can be monopolies as well right.
  Microsoft has been trying to do everything it can to please the EU and the EU is still aggressive.
  I personally would like to give the EU the finger double dipped and put them back to the dark ages again.
  I am not a Microsoft fan, they made their own bed on the original issue, but now it's a different story.
The only left now is that the EU prevents the sale of windows in Europe.
  **** Europe.
Let them eat sh*t all the way back to rome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28314907</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1244805360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The argument is that a company which maintains a *monopoly* in as far as what operating system people are more likely to use is abusing this position of monopoly to push their own browser which is in turn stiffling innovation and advancement in browsers.</p></div><p>
Firefox proves that you are wrong, right?<br>
<br>
You cannot on the one hand say that they stiffled innovation and on the other rejoice that innovation by the competiton is winning the market over.<br>
<br>
The fact is that Netscape was a piece of crud, and worse yet they decided to do an entire rewrite of that piece of crud, producing an even bigger piece of crud that was even worse than the original.<br>
<br>
Lets get some history here.<br>
<br>
Its 1998, the U.S. went after Microsoft for anti-trust practices for bundling I.E., meanwhile.. Netscape is on version 4.x, the second biggest piece of crud given the name Netscape. Knowing how really bad their browser was, Netscape open sourced it and formed Mozilla, who decided that it was so bad that a full 100\% re-write was needed.<br>
<br>
AOL, the most dominant internet service provider at the time, then bought Netscape this same year.<br>
<br>
Its now 2000, and the U.S. finally ruled against Microsoft in its anti-trust case. Netscape finally has a new release. They skipped 5.x and went right to 6.x. This turns out to be the biggest piece of crud they ever put their name on.<br>
<br>
AOL decides to go after Microsoft in civil court for anti-trust compensation.<br>
<br>
Its now 2003, and AOL's case against Microsoft comes to a conclusion. One of the things AOL demanded was the right to distribute Internet Explorer royalty free. This is what their users wanted. AOL then disbanded Netscape Communications and Mozilla announced that they would be focusing on developing Firefox.<br>
<br>
Its now 2004 and Firefox 1.0 has arrived.<br>
<br>
Thats 6 years of Internet Explorer without any competition, not because of anti-trust, but because the competitors simply didn't have a good product and made some pretty big mistakes along the way.<br>
<br>
Firefox 1.0 grabbed market share immediately.<br>
<br>
Its now 2009, 5 years after Firefox was released, and 11 years after Netscape committed suicide. It has at least 220 million users, and has been downloaded from the official site over 700 million times. "Market Share" estimates all fall somewhere between 20\% and 40\%.<br>
<br>
So in the 5 years its been live, Firefox has proved that quality and innovation does work. It has proven that "bundling the browser" it not a barrier to entry, just like Internet Explorer proved that AOL's Netscape dominance wasnt a barrier (AOL sued them for the right to distribute Microsofts superior product! Think about that.)<br>
<br>
If Microsoft had not lost that anti-trust case, Netscape then might still be alive, because AOL never would have won the right to distribute Internet Explorer. Carefull what you wish for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument is that a company which maintains a * monopoly * in as far as what operating system people are more likely to use is abusing this position of monopoly to push their own browser which is in turn stiffling innovation and advancement in browsers .
Firefox proves that you are wrong , right ?
You can not on the one hand say that they stiffled innovation and on the other rejoice that innovation by the competiton is winning the market over .
The fact is that Netscape was a piece of crud , and worse yet they decided to do an entire rewrite of that piece of crud , producing an even bigger piece of crud that was even worse than the original .
Lets get some history here .
Its 1998 , the U.S. went after Microsoft for anti-trust practices for bundling I.E. , meanwhile.. Netscape is on version 4.x , the second biggest piece of crud given the name Netscape .
Knowing how really bad their browser was , Netscape open sourced it and formed Mozilla , who decided that it was so bad that a full 100 \ % re-write was needed .
AOL , the most dominant internet service provider at the time , then bought Netscape this same year .
Its now 2000 , and the U.S. finally ruled against Microsoft in its anti-trust case .
Netscape finally has a new release .
They skipped 5.x and went right to 6.x .
This turns out to be the biggest piece of crud they ever put their name on .
AOL decides to go after Microsoft in civil court for anti-trust compensation .
Its now 2003 , and AOL 's case against Microsoft comes to a conclusion .
One of the things AOL demanded was the right to distribute Internet Explorer royalty free .
This is what their users wanted .
AOL then disbanded Netscape Communications and Mozilla announced that they would be focusing on developing Firefox .
Its now 2004 and Firefox 1.0 has arrived .
Thats 6 years of Internet Explorer without any competition , not because of anti-trust , but because the competitors simply did n't have a good product and made some pretty big mistakes along the way .
Firefox 1.0 grabbed market share immediately .
Its now 2009 , 5 years after Firefox was released , and 11 years after Netscape committed suicide .
It has at least 220 million users , and has been downloaded from the official site over 700 million times .
" Market Share " estimates all fall somewhere between 20 \ % and 40 \ % .
So in the 5 years its been live , Firefox has proved that quality and innovation does work .
It has proven that " bundling the browser " it not a barrier to entry , just like Internet Explorer proved that AOL 's Netscape dominance wasnt a barrier ( AOL sued them for the right to distribute Microsofts superior product !
Think about that .
) If Microsoft had not lost that anti-trust case , Netscape then might still be alive , because AOL never would have won the right to distribute Internet Explorer .
Carefull what you wish for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument is that a company which maintains a *monopoly* in as far as what operating system people are more likely to use is abusing this position of monopoly to push their own browser which is in turn stiffling innovation and advancement in browsers.
Firefox proves that you are wrong, right?
You cannot on the one hand say that they stiffled innovation and on the other rejoice that innovation by the competiton is winning the market over.
The fact is that Netscape was a piece of crud, and worse yet they decided to do an entire rewrite of that piece of crud, producing an even bigger piece of crud that was even worse than the original.
Lets get some history here.
Its 1998, the U.S. went after Microsoft for anti-trust practices for bundling I.E., meanwhile.. Netscape is on version 4.x, the second biggest piece of crud given the name Netscape.
Knowing how really bad their browser was, Netscape open sourced it and formed Mozilla, who decided that it was so bad that a full 100\% re-write was needed.
AOL, the most dominant internet service provider at the time, then bought Netscape this same year.
Its now 2000, and the U.S. finally ruled against Microsoft in its anti-trust case.
Netscape finally has a new release.
They skipped 5.x and went right to 6.x.
This turns out to be the biggest piece of crud they ever put their name on.
AOL decides to go after Microsoft in civil court for anti-trust compensation.
Its now 2003, and AOL's case against Microsoft comes to a conclusion.
One of the things AOL demanded was the right to distribute Internet Explorer royalty free.
This is what their users wanted.
AOL then disbanded Netscape Communications and Mozilla announced that they would be focusing on developing Firefox.
Its now 2004 and Firefox 1.0 has arrived.
Thats 6 years of Internet Explorer without any competition, not because of anti-trust, but because the competitors simply didn't have a good product and made some pretty big mistakes along the way.
Firefox 1.0 grabbed market share immediately.
Its now 2009, 5 years after Firefox was released, and 11 years after Netscape committed suicide.
It has at least 220 million users, and has been downloaded from the official site over 700 million times.
"Market Share" estimates all fall somewhere between 20\% and 40\%.
So in the 5 years its been live, Firefox has proved that quality and innovation does work.
It has proven that "bundling the browser" it not a barrier to entry, just like Internet Explorer proved that AOL's Netscape dominance wasnt a barrier (AOL sued them for the right to distribute Microsofts superior product!
Think about that.
)

If Microsoft had not lost that anti-trust case, Netscape then might still be alive, because AOL never would have won the right to distribute Internet Explorer.
Carefull what you wish for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309897</id>
	<title>Heavy Handed Government</title>
	<author>hoooocheymomma</author>
	<datestamp>1244828280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into Windows</p></div><p>There have always been plenty of issues that pissed me off about Microsoft, and I have always resented them for having a closed source rendering engine in their browser, full of flaws, that ultimately ruined 90\%+ of the HTML on the Internet.</p><p>But the statement above scares the shit out of me. A software vendor is not allowed to bundle its products? WTF?? The government has waaaay too much power when they can tell a company that bundling its products is not legal. Microsoft's actions were highly anti-competitive when they made IE an integral part of the Windows operating system. That was obvious to everybody. They are on two completely different levels of functionality.</p><p>But a software manufacturer has every right (IMHO) to encourage the use of ALL of its products.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into WindowsThere have always been plenty of issues that pissed me off about Microsoft , and I have always resented them for having a closed source rendering engine in their browser , full of flaws , that ultimately ruined 90 \ % + of the HTML on the Internet.But the statement above scares the shit out of me .
A software vendor is not allowed to bundle its products ?
WTF ? ? The government has waaaay too much power when they can tell a company that bundling its products is not legal .
Microsoft 's actions were highly anti-competitive when they made IE an integral part of the Windows operating system .
That was obvious to everybody .
They are on two completely different levels of functionality.But a software manufacturer has every right ( IMHO ) to encourage the use of ALL of its products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has acknowledged it has been breaking the law by bundling IE into WindowsThere have always been plenty of issues that pissed me off about Microsoft, and I have always resented them for having a closed source rendering engine in their browser, full of flaws, that ultimately ruined 90\%+ of the HTML on the Internet.But the statement above scares the shit out of me.
A software vendor is not allowed to bundle its products?
WTF?? The government has waaaay too much power when they can tell a company that bundling its products is not legal.
Microsoft's actions were highly anti-competitive when they made IE an integral part of the Windows operating system.
That was obvious to everybody.
They are on two completely different levels of functionality.But a software manufacturer has every right (IMHO) to encourage the use of ALL of its products.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310171</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>zefrer</author>
	<datestamp>1244829300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems.</p><p>The argument is that a company which maintains a *monopoly* in as far as what operating system people are more likely to use is abusing this position of monopoly to push their own browser which is in turn stiffling innovation and advancement in browsers.</p><p>Evidence is everywhere of this. Do you really thing IE6 deserves its market share? Whenever a company abuses its position to push a competing product at the expense of other companies trying to compete with it then yes, that is due cause for the law to step in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems.The argument is that a company which maintains a * monopoly * in as far as what operating system people are more likely to use is abusing this position of monopoly to push their own browser which is in turn stiffling innovation and advancement in browsers.Evidence is everywhere of this .
Do you really thing IE6 deserves its market share ?
Whenever a company abuses its position to push a competing product at the expense of other companies trying to compete with it then yes , that is due cause for the law to step in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems.The argument is that a company which maintains a *monopoly* in as far as what operating system people are more likely to use is abusing this position of monopoly to push their own browser which is in turn stiffling innovation and advancement in browsers.Evidence is everywhere of this.
Do you really thing IE6 deserves its market share?
Whenever a company abuses its position to push a competing product at the expense of other companies trying to compete with it then yes, that is due cause for the law to step in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309395</id>
	<title>fris7 pysot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244826480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in eternity...Romeo Parts. the current BBen the best,</htmltext>
<tokenext>in eternity...Romeo Parts .
the current BBen the best,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in eternity...Romeo Parts.
the current BBen the best,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28312023</id>
	<title>Re:Let me see if I have this right...</title>
	<author>pavon</author>
	<datestamp>1244836440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right. They haven't told Microsoft what is acceptable, and in the meanwhile Microsoft has a product to ship. They make a decision that ought to satisfy any reasonable logical human being.</p><p>But the EC says we're still going to pursue this as an antitrust case even though there is no longer any antitrust concern. We don't like your solution so we are going to come up with our own and mandate you use it even though the solution you put forth breaks no laws.</p><p>Furthermore, all of the <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-oblige-microsoft-offer-competitors-browsers/article-179602" title="euractiv.com">information</a> [euractiv.com] coming out of the EC's office for the last several months makes it very clear that what they intend to do is to force Microsoft to either bundle or provide a splash screen dialog to download alternate browsers. It isn't the least bit presumptuous to assume that the EC is going to do exactly what it has been threatening to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
They have n't told Microsoft what is acceptable , and in the meanwhile Microsoft has a product to ship .
They make a decision that ought to satisfy any reasonable logical human being.But the EC says we 're still going to pursue this as an antitrust case even though there is no longer any antitrust concern .
We do n't like your solution so we are going to come up with our own and mandate you use it even though the solution you put forth breaks no laws.Furthermore , all of the information [ euractiv.com ] coming out of the EC 's office for the last several months makes it very clear that what they intend to do is to force Microsoft to either bundle or provide a splash screen dialog to download alternate browsers .
It is n't the least bit presumptuous to assume that the EC is going to do exactly what it has been threatening to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
They haven't told Microsoft what is acceptable, and in the meanwhile Microsoft has a product to ship.
They make a decision that ought to satisfy any reasonable logical human being.But the EC says we're still going to pursue this as an antitrust case even though there is no longer any antitrust concern.
We don't like your solution so we are going to come up with our own and mandate you use it even though the solution you put forth breaks no laws.Furthermore, all of the information [euractiv.com] coming out of the EC's office for the last several months makes it very clear that what they intend to do is to force Microsoft to either bundle or provide a splash screen dialog to download alternate browsers.
It isn't the least bit presumptuous to assume that the EC is going to do exactly what it has been threatening to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28313343</id>
	<title>Re:Let me see if I have this right...</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1244797860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ok, Microsoft is found guilty of abusing its position of controlling the currently most popular PC OS on the market. Through bundling and anti-competitive practices they're nailed for being a monopoly.</p></div><p>They were nailed for abusing a monopoly, not being one.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The media player gets stripped out per an earlier EC case.</p></div><p>But the media player wasn't stripped out. It was removed from a special version of Windows while people who bought that version still had to pay for it. It was functionally no different than throwing the player away and failed miserably to remedy the market imbalance. That market is still horribly broken (for numerous reasons).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, in 2007, Opera complains about the browser bundling, saying that it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage in the browser wars. The EC says "Yeah, you're right! Ok MS, take out the bundled browser"</p></div><p>WRONG! The EU said no such thing. They said they think MS is guilty and started looking for ways to undo the damage MS had done over the years. MS then said they were pulling IE from the next version of Windows voluntarily in the hopes the EU would not impose a harsher and more effective punishment and remedy.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...what they REALLY wanted Microsoft to do was to bundle a competing product with the base OS. They don't want a level playing field, they want to tip the scales in their favor (specifically to Opera).</p></div><p>Opera doesn't even want their browser bundled with Windows. They primarily make money licensing the mobile version. They want the market fixed so they don't have to spend millions engineering around broken Web pages that were the intentional result of MS's crime. The EU wants the market restored to competition. Just stopping a crime does not solve the damage done by it. It's like if a person stabs you then when the cops show up they pull out the knife and say, "see I stopped, it's all good". In such a situation is it "unfair" and "biased" if the police throw the stabber in prison and make them pay the medical bills of the victim? </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Let the OEMs decide what browser to install on a system.</p></div><p>It's way, way, way too late for that. OEMs have a vested interest in supporting fewer applications. OEMs have a vested interest in stalling IE since only it can deal with the broken IE only pages and applications on the Web. That is a direct result of a criminal action. It's like letting the robber keep all the money they stole so long as they stop. It is far too little, far too late.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Considering current browser usage statistics, I think the entire browser monopoly concept is antiquated.</p></div><p>You're completely ignorant. This isn't about a browser monopoly. It's about their browser having an unfair market share because of leveraging of a desktop OS monopoly. If you don't even know what crime MS committed how can you sit here and tell us why the punishment for that crime is not suitable?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What this really feels like is...</p></div><p>...Incredible ignorance or astroturfing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , Microsoft is found guilty of abusing its position of controlling the currently most popular PC OS on the market .
Through bundling and anti-competitive practices they 're nailed for being a monopoly.They were nailed for abusing a monopoly , not being one.The media player gets stripped out per an earlier EC case.But the media player was n't stripped out .
It was removed from a special version of Windows while people who bought that version still had to pay for it .
It was functionally no different than throwing the player away and failed miserably to remedy the market imbalance .
That market is still horribly broken ( for numerous reasons ) .Now , in 2007 , Opera complains about the browser bundling , saying that it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage in the browser wars .
The EC says " Yeah , you 're right !
Ok MS , take out the bundled browser " WRONG !
The EU said no such thing .
They said they think MS is guilty and started looking for ways to undo the damage MS had done over the years .
MS then said they were pulling IE from the next version of Windows voluntarily in the hopes the EU would not impose a harsher and more effective punishment and remedy .
...what they REALLY wanted Microsoft to do was to bundle a competing product with the base OS .
They do n't want a level playing field , they want to tip the scales in their favor ( specifically to Opera ) .Opera does n't even want their browser bundled with Windows .
They primarily make money licensing the mobile version .
They want the market fixed so they do n't have to spend millions engineering around broken Web pages that were the intentional result of MS 's crime .
The EU wants the market restored to competition .
Just stopping a crime does not solve the damage done by it .
It 's like if a person stabs you then when the cops show up they pull out the knife and say , " see I stopped , it 's all good " .
In such a situation is it " unfair " and " biased " if the police throw the stabber in prison and make them pay the medical bills of the victim ?
Let the OEMs decide what browser to install on a system.It 's way , way , way too late for that .
OEMs have a vested interest in supporting fewer applications .
OEMs have a vested interest in stalling IE since only it can deal with the broken IE only pages and applications on the Web .
That is a direct result of a criminal action .
It 's like letting the robber keep all the money they stole so long as they stop .
It is far too little , far too late.Considering current browser usage statistics , I think the entire browser monopoly concept is antiquated.You 're completely ignorant .
This is n't about a browser monopoly .
It 's about their browser having an unfair market share because of leveraging of a desktop OS monopoly .
If you do n't even know what crime MS committed how can you sit here and tell us why the punishment for that crime is not suitable ? What this really feels like is......Incredible ignorance or astroturfing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, Microsoft is found guilty of abusing its position of controlling the currently most popular PC OS on the market.
Through bundling and anti-competitive practices they're nailed for being a monopoly.They were nailed for abusing a monopoly, not being one.The media player gets stripped out per an earlier EC case.But the media player wasn't stripped out.
It was removed from a special version of Windows while people who bought that version still had to pay for it.
It was functionally no different than throwing the player away and failed miserably to remedy the market imbalance.
That market is still horribly broken (for numerous reasons).Now, in 2007, Opera complains about the browser bundling, saying that it gives Microsoft an unfair advantage in the browser wars.
The EC says "Yeah, you're right!
Ok MS, take out the bundled browser"WRONG!
The EU said no such thing.
They said they think MS is guilty and started looking for ways to undo the damage MS had done over the years.
MS then said they were pulling IE from the next version of Windows voluntarily in the hopes the EU would not impose a harsher and more effective punishment and remedy.
...what they REALLY wanted Microsoft to do was to bundle a competing product with the base OS.
They don't want a level playing field, they want to tip the scales in their favor (specifically to Opera).Opera doesn't even want their browser bundled with Windows.
They primarily make money licensing the mobile version.
They want the market fixed so they don't have to spend millions engineering around broken Web pages that were the intentional result of MS's crime.
The EU wants the market restored to competition.
Just stopping a crime does not solve the damage done by it.
It's like if a person stabs you then when the cops show up they pull out the knife and say, "see I stopped, it's all good".
In such a situation is it "unfair" and "biased" if the police throw the stabber in prison and make them pay the medical bills of the victim?
Let the OEMs decide what browser to install on a system.It's way, way, way too late for that.
OEMs have a vested interest in supporting fewer applications.
OEMs have a vested interest in stalling IE since only it can deal with the broken IE only pages and applications on the Web.
That is a direct result of a criminal action.
It's like letting the robber keep all the money they stole so long as they stop.
It is far too little, far too late.Considering current browser usage statistics, I think the entire browser monopoly concept is antiquated.You're completely ignorant.
This isn't about a browser monopoly.
It's about their browser having an unfair market share because of leveraging of a desktop OS monopoly.
If you don't even know what crime MS committed how can you sit here and tell us why the punishment for that crime is not suitable?What this really feels like is......Incredible ignorance or astroturfing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309493</id>
	<title>Welcome to Communism 101</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244826840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks Opera and EC for bringing in a great old friend to the Consumer / Business world...idiots...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks Opera and EC for bringing in a great old friend to the Consumer / Business world...idiots.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks Opera and EC for bringing in a great old friend to the Consumer / Business world...idiots...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309577</id>
	<title>OMG people!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244827140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a GOOD THING.  I can't believe all the rabid anti-EU postings here.  Somebody finally has the courage to stand up to Microsoft, and you people want to sting them up!</p><p>Look: Microsoft has obtained their monopoly by unethical means.  They have maintained that monopoly by illegal means.  They are illegally leveraging their monopoly to extend their dominance into other markets.</p><p>Thank goodness the EU has the guts to fight this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a GOOD THING .
I ca n't believe all the rabid anti-EU postings here .
Somebody finally has the courage to stand up to Microsoft , and you people want to sting them up ! Look : Microsoft has obtained their monopoly by unethical means .
They have maintained that monopoly by illegal means .
They are illegally leveraging their monopoly to extend their dominance into other markets.Thank goodness the EU has the guts to fight this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a GOOD THING.
I can't believe all the rabid anti-EU postings here.
Somebody finally has the courage to stand up to Microsoft, and you people want to sting them up!Look: Microsoft has obtained their monopoly by unethical means.
They have maintained that monopoly by illegal means.
They are illegally leveraging their monopoly to extend their dominance into other markets.Thank goodness the EU has the guts to fight this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309609</id>
	<title>Could have been worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244827260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft could have bundled in an old version of firefox and restricted it to only being able to access add-ons from an approved source on microsofts site that you need a windows live ID to access.  Do the same with the 8.0 version of Opera with a few settings "mis-set"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft could have bundled in an old version of firefox and restricted it to only being able to access add-ons from an approved source on microsofts site that you need a windows live ID to access .
Do the same with the 8.0 version of Opera with a few settings " mis-set "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft could have bundled in an old version of firefox and restricted it to only being able to access add-ons from an approved source on microsofts site that you need a windows live ID to access.
Do the same with the 8.0 version of Opera with a few settings "mis-set"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310473</id>
	<title>Here's an idea. Microsoft should say goodbye.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244830560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were the head of Microsoft I'd be tempted to simply say, "Fine. Goodbye" and pull all Microsoft products off the shelves permanently. Then let's see who starts screaming, the lawyers, or the consumers. Microsoft (or any company) can never satisfy a bunch of lawyers out to rack up legal bills and who really don't give a damn one way or the other but need the work.</p><p>GET OUT MICROSOFT. Get out Google. Get of any EU countries and focus on Asia, Eastern Europe, and North and South America. Screw the EU.</p><p>Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly anymore than BMW has a monopoly on certain items they put in THEIR products and they are not told, "Hey, you can't sell that new M3 with just one type of engine manufacturer... no no..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ya have to include a Ford Focus in that M3 to make it a fair market."</p><p>Imagine if every company who made something was told they had to offer additional options. Hey, can't sell that chair with 4 legs, you need to also make one with 3 and 5 legs to be fair.</p><p>What a joke.</p><p>Go buy a Mac. Get a life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were the head of Microsoft I 'd be tempted to simply say , " Fine .
Goodbye " and pull all Microsoft products off the shelves permanently .
Then let 's see who starts screaming , the lawyers , or the consumers .
Microsoft ( or any company ) can never satisfy a bunch of lawyers out to rack up legal bills and who really do n't give a damn one way or the other but need the work.GET OUT MICROSOFT .
Get out Google .
Get of any EU countries and focus on Asia , Eastern Europe , and North and South America .
Screw the EU.Microsoft does n't have a monopoly anymore than BMW has a monopoly on certain items they put in THEIR products and they are not told , " Hey , you ca n't sell that new M3 with just one type of engine manufacturer... no no.. .ya have to include a Ford Focus in that M3 to make it a fair market .
" Imagine if every company who made something was told they had to offer additional options .
Hey , ca n't sell that chair with 4 legs , you need to also make one with 3 and 5 legs to be fair.What a joke.Go buy a Mac .
Get a life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were the head of Microsoft I'd be tempted to simply say, "Fine.
Goodbye" and pull all Microsoft products off the shelves permanently.
Then let's see who starts screaming, the lawyers, or the consumers.
Microsoft (or any company) can never satisfy a bunch of lawyers out to rack up legal bills and who really don't give a damn one way or the other but need the work.GET OUT MICROSOFT.
Get out Google.
Get of any EU countries and focus on Asia, Eastern Europe, and North and South America.
Screw the EU.Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly anymore than BMW has a monopoly on certain items they put in THEIR products and they are not told, "Hey, you can't sell that new M3 with just one type of engine manufacturer... no no.. .ya have to include a Ford Focus in that M3 to make it a fair market.
"Imagine if every company who made something was told they had to offer additional options.
Hey, can't sell that chair with 4 legs, you need to also make one with 3 and 5 legs to be fair.What a joke.Go buy a Mac.
Get a life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28319271</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>LordGlenn</author>
	<datestamp>1244902260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems.
I'm not a mac user,but I'm pretty sure apple bundles safari with their OS.

I'm having trouble with your second point: your saying that whatever OS is the most popular at the moment is commiting a crime by pushing their own products? HOW they pushed them may have been unethical, but just how has IE hurt browser innovation? Opera,Chrome,Firefox...all better the IE..

do I think IE6 deserves it's market share? No,I don't So Inlighten me I.T. guys: why is your company still using IE6? Mine's not...</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems .
I 'm not a mac user,but I 'm pretty sure apple bundles safari with their OS .
I 'm having trouble with your second point : your saying that whatever OS is the most popular at the moment is commiting a crime by pushing their own products ?
HOW they pushed them may have been unethical , but just how has IE hurt browser innovation ?
Opera,Chrome,Firefox...all better the IE. . do I think IE6 deserves it 's market share ?
No,I do n't So Inlighten me I.T .
guys : why is your company still using IE6 ?
Mine 's not.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The argument is not that no other company bundles browers with their operating systems.
I'm not a mac user,but I'm pretty sure apple bundles safari with their OS.
I'm having trouble with your second point: your saying that whatever OS is the most popular at the moment is commiting a crime by pushing their own products?
HOW they pushed them may have been unethical, but just how has IE hurt browser innovation?
Opera,Chrome,Firefox...all better the IE..

do I think IE6 deserves it's market share?
No,I don't So Inlighten me I.T.
guys: why is your company still using IE6?
Mine's not...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310231</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, enough already</title>
	<author>mikael\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1244829540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they could just settle on the four or five most popular browsers at the moment and let the user choose which browser to use when first starting up the machine and creating a user account.</p><p>It may not be perfect but by making the user choose (and not having IE be the default choice for the "just click Next" folks) you'll probably see IE's market share drop quite a lot (although from what I've seen in our logs it's already down to ~60\% for the biggest site I'm in charge of (which is hardly a geek site btw), and only ~5\% of the users are still running IE6).</p><p>/Mikael</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they could just settle on the four or five most popular browsers at the moment and let the user choose which browser to use when first starting up the machine and creating a user account.It may not be perfect but by making the user choose ( and not having IE be the default choice for the " just click Next " folks ) you 'll probably see IE 's market share drop quite a lot ( although from what I 've seen in our logs it 's already down to ~ 60 \ % for the biggest site I 'm in charge of ( which is hardly a geek site btw ) , and only ~ 5 \ % of the users are still running IE6 ) ./Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they could just settle on the four or five most popular browsers at the moment and let the user choose which browser to use when first starting up the machine and creating a user account.It may not be perfect but by making the user choose (and not having IE be the default choice for the "just click Next" folks) you'll probably see IE's market share drop quite a lot (although from what I've seen in our logs it's already down to ~60\% for the biggest site I'm in charge of (which is hardly a geek site btw), and only ~5\% of the users are still running IE6)./Mikael</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28313099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28324205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28312085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28315363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28387585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28312023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28315977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28387621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28322297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28319271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28316273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28314907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28314997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28313343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28387607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28319835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1457233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28315977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28387621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28314907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28315363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28319271
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28322297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309689
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310099
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310821
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310563
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28316273
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28324205
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311085
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310231
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28314997
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28319835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28313099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28311989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28312023
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28387585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28313343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28312085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28309577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28387607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1457233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1457233.28310463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
