<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_02_1355210</id>
	<title>Safe Harbor Spells Win For Kaspersky In Malware Case Against Zango</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246551060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun writes to tell us that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has <a href="http://usa.kaspersky.com/about-us/news-press-releases.php?smnr\_id=900000245">ruled in favor of security company Kaspersky</a> in the recent case questioning their classification of Zango software as malware.  <i>"The court ruled that Kaspersky Lab, which classified online media company Zango's software as malware and 'protected' users from it accordingly, could not be held liable for any actions it took to manufacture and distribute the technical means to restrict Zango software's access to others, as Kaspersky Lab deemed it 'objectionable material.'  Zango sued Kaspersky Lab to force the Company to reclassify Zango's programs as nonthreatening and to prevent Kaspersky Lab's security software from blocking Zango's potentially undesirable programs. In the precedent-setting ruling for the anti-malware industry, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that Kaspersky Lab is a provider of an 'interactive computer service' as defined in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 . Part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states:  'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ... any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to [objectionable] material.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun writes to tell us that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of security company Kaspersky in the recent case questioning their classification of Zango software as malware .
" The court ruled that Kaspersky Lab , which classified online media company Zango 's software as malware and 'protected ' users from it accordingly , could not be held liable for any actions it took to manufacture and distribute the technical means to restrict Zango software 's access to others , as Kaspersky Lab deemed it 'objectionable material .
' Zango sued Kaspersky Lab to force the Company to reclassify Zango 's programs as nonthreatening and to prevent Kaspersky Lab 's security software from blocking Zango 's potentially undesirable programs .
In the precedent-setting ruling for the anti-malware industry , the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that Kaspersky Lab is a provider of an 'interactive computer service ' as defined in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 .
Part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states : 'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ... any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to [ objectionable ] material .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun writes to tell us that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of security company Kaspersky in the recent case questioning their classification of Zango software as malware.
"The court ruled that Kaspersky Lab, which classified online media company Zango's software as malware and 'protected' users from it accordingly, could not be held liable for any actions it took to manufacture and distribute the technical means to restrict Zango software's access to others, as Kaspersky Lab deemed it 'objectionable material.
'  Zango sued Kaspersky Lab to force the Company to reclassify Zango's programs as nonthreatening and to prevent Kaspersky Lab's security software from blocking Zango's potentially undesirable programs.
In the precedent-setting ruling for the anti-malware industry, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that Kaspersky Lab is a provider of an 'interactive computer service' as defined in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 .
Part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states:  'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ... any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to [objectionable] material.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559391</id>
	<title>Kaspersky ALabs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246556580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dr. Eugene Kaspersky, it a leader in anti-virus anti-malware technology. Why listen to Zango, they<br>are the GATOR of today!</p><p>Russians are better programmers than their own counterparts that try tosteal data or infect machines. The good guys rule, the Russian Mafia drools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dr. Eugene Kaspersky , it a leader in anti-virus anti-malware technology .
Why listen to Zango , theyare the GATOR of today ! Russians are better programmers than their own counterparts that try tosteal data or infect machines .
The good guys rule , the Russian Mafia drools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dr. Eugene Kaspersky, it a leader in anti-virus anti-malware technology.
Why listen to Zango, theyare the GATOR of today!Russians are better programmers than their own counterparts that try tosteal data or infect machines.
The good guys rule, the Russian Mafia drools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28568873</id>
	<title>If you want to read the actual judicial opinion...</title>
	<author>crankyspice</author>
	<datestamp>1246562940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Here it is:  <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/25/07-35800.pdf" title="uscourts.gov">http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/25/07-35800.pdf</a> [uscourts.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Here it is : http : //www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/25/07-35800.pdf [ uscourts.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Here it is:  http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/25/07-35800.pdf [uscourts.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559439</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1246556640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>KILL IT WITH FIRE!</i></p><p>Nah, that would allow the "phoenix" company to rise from the ashes...just using a different name.  I'd humbly suggest the following:</p><p>Invite a horde of angry Mongols to their office building.  Ask said Mongols to do what they do best.  Once the flames, smoke, and lamentations of the women die down to a dull roar, invite the US Army to do some tank maneuvers over the remains.</p><p>Then, till the soil, salt it, and nuke it repeatedly from orbit.  After the land becomes habitable once again, repeat the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>KILL IT WITH FIRE ! Nah , that would allow the " phoenix " company to rise from the ashes...just using a different name .
I 'd humbly suggest the following : Invite a horde of angry Mongols to their office building .
Ask said Mongols to do what they do best .
Once the flames , smoke , and lamentations of the women die down to a dull roar , invite the US Army to do some tank maneuvers over the remains.Then , till the soil , salt it , and nuke it repeatedly from orbit .
After the land becomes habitable once again , repeat the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KILL IT WITH FIRE!Nah, that would allow the "phoenix" company to rise from the ashes...just using a different name.
I'd humbly suggest the following:Invite a horde of angry Mongols to their office building.
Ask said Mongols to do what they do best.
Once the flames, smoke, and lamentations of the women die down to a dull roar, invite the US Army to do some tank maneuvers over the remains.Then, till the soil, salt it, and nuke it repeatedly from orbit.
After the land becomes habitable once again, repeat the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558965</id>
	<title>Zango.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246555080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unable to connect to Zango.com. I guess it's all the karma whores trying to post links to it?</p><p>KW: "Well, here's the <a href="zango.com" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">site</a> [slashdot.org] that they're talking about. Blah blah blah something to make it sound pertinent and important to the dicussion blah blah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...." See, you karma whores have disrupted Zango's business! Is it all worth it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unable to connect to Zango.com .
I guess it 's all the karma whores trying to post links to it ? KW : " Well , here 's the site [ slashdot.org ] that they 're talking about .
Blah blah blah something to make it sound pertinent and important to the dicussion blah blah .... " See , you karma whores have disrupted Zango 's business !
Is it all worth it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unable to connect to Zango.com.
I guess it's all the karma whores trying to post links to it?KW: "Well, here's the site [slashdot.org] that they're talking about.
Blah blah blah something to make it sound pertinent and important to the dicussion blah blah ...." See, you karma whores have disrupted Zango's business!
Is it all worth it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559129</id>
	<title>It's about time</title>
	<author>cyberzephyr</author>
	<datestamp>1246555680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zango and all of it's various iterations have been a plague for countless people.  I'm glad the court ruled against them and i hope it sets a good example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zango and all of it 's various iterations have been a plague for countless people .
I 'm glad the court ruled against them and i hope it sets a good example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zango and all of it's various iterations have been a plague for countless people.
I'm glad the court ruled against them and i hope it sets a good example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28586437</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246810380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know what you mean. The general rule of system administration and work in general is: If they can do it wrong, they will! And if you tell them, they will forget it as soon as you leave the room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know what you mean .
The general rule of system administration and work in general is : If they can do it wrong , they will !
And if you tell them , they will forget it as soon as you leave the room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know what you mean.
The general rule of system administration and work in general is: If they can do it wrong, they will!
And if you tell them, they will forget it as soon as you leave the room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559219</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246555980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both 180solutions and Hotbar were the bane of my existence back in the day.  Both these malware items would just keep coming back like persistent, antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.  You think you've got every last little registry entry and file removed and lo and behold it would be back.  This wouldn't be malware if the company provided honest instructions for the removal of these programs.  In some cases, I had heard, the removal instructions simply added code to reinforce the malware.  However, because they are being deceptive about its install and automatic re-install, it makes the behaviour unethical.  Therefore Zango and its ilk should take the slap on the ass and go sulk in a corner somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both 180solutions and Hotbar were the bane of my existence back in the day .
Both these malware items would just keep coming back like persistent , antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria .
You think you 've got every last little registry entry and file removed and lo and behold it would be back .
This would n't be malware if the company provided honest instructions for the removal of these programs .
In some cases , I had heard , the removal instructions simply added code to reinforce the malware .
However , because they are being deceptive about its install and automatic re-install , it makes the behaviour unethical .
Therefore Zango and its ilk should take the slap on the ass and go sulk in a corner somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both 180solutions and Hotbar were the bane of my existence back in the day.
Both these malware items would just keep coming back like persistent, antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.
You think you've got every last little registry entry and file removed and lo and behold it would be back.
This wouldn't be malware if the company provided honest instructions for the removal of these programs.
In some cases, I had heard, the removal instructions simply added code to reinforce the malware.
However, because they are being deceptive about its install and automatic re-install, it makes the behaviour unethical.
Therefore Zango and its ilk should take the slap on the ass and go sulk in a corner somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559007</id>
	<title>Now Kaspersky next Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246555140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is interesting, because you would not like any malaware/software company to dictate what the antivirus company does, but at the same time, what does that mean for other cases (not in court... yet) like the fact that Microsoft makes it hard, in vista, to read/mount any ext2 partition???
<br> <br>
( I just read this this <a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1289801&amp;cid=28557283" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">comment </a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is interesting , because you would not like any malaware/software company to dictate what the antivirus company does , but at the same time , what does that mean for other cases ( not in court... yet ) like the fact that Microsoft makes it hard , in vista , to read/mount any ext2 partition ? ? ?
( I just read this this comment [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is interesting, because you would not like any malaware/software company to dictate what the antivirus company does, but at the same time, what does that mean for other cases (not in court... yet) like the fact that Microsoft makes it hard, in vista, to read/mount any ext2 partition???
( I just read this this comment  [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560581</id>
	<title>Re:What's more disturbing</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1246559880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How glib.  (In spite of the fact that 3 or 4 moderators apparently don't think so.)</p><p>The law governs all manner of simple actions that can be described with harmless-sounding generalisms, <i>under certain circumstances</i>.  It's the context and effect of doing those general things that either is, or is not, legal.</p><p>Is it legal to twitch my finger?  But what if my finger is wrapped around the trigger of a gun, which I'm pointing at a clerk at a convenience store?  Do I need a court precedent for deciding if moving my own finger is legal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How glib .
( In spite of the fact that 3 or 4 moderators apparently do n't think so .
) The law governs all manner of simple actions that can be described with harmless-sounding generalisms , under certain circumstances .
It 's the context and effect of doing those general things that either is , or is not , legal.Is it legal to twitch my finger ?
But what if my finger is wrapped around the trigger of a gun , which I 'm pointing at a clerk at a convenience store ?
Do I need a court precedent for deciding if moving my own finger is legal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How glib.
(In spite of the fact that 3 or 4 moderators apparently don't think so.
)The law governs all manner of simple actions that can be described with harmless-sounding generalisms, under certain circumstances.
It's the context and effect of doing those general things that either is, or is not, legal.Is it legal to twitch my finger?
But what if my finger is wrapped around the trigger of a gun, which I'm pointing at a clerk at a convenience store?
Do I need a court precedent for deciding if moving my own finger is legal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28562509</id>
	<title>Re:ISPs can now block ads</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1246566120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This expands the "safe harbor" of the CDA to cover ad-blockers. Now, ISP's can offer ad removal as a service.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>That'd be a sure-fire way to get a sort of reverse net-non-neutrality from the part of hosts. "You are attempting to visit adinfested.com. Your ISP filters ads, so we will not send any content. Choose a different ISP to view this site."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This expands the " safe harbor " of the CDA to cover ad-blockers .
Now , ISP 's can offer ad removal as a service .
That 'd be a sure-fire way to get a sort of reverse net-non-neutrality from the part of hosts .
" You are attempting to visit adinfested.com .
Your ISP filters ads , so we will not send any content .
Choose a different ISP to view this site .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This expands the "safe harbor" of the CDA to cover ad-blockers.
Now, ISP's can offer ad removal as a service.
That'd be a sure-fire way to get a sort of reverse net-non-neutrality from the part of hosts.
"You are attempting to visit adinfested.com.
Your ISP filters ads, so we will not send any content.
Choose a different ISP to view this site.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559367</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>fataugie</author>
	<datestamp>1246556520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say we blast off and nuke the site from space...it's the only way to be sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say we blast off and nuke the site from space...it 's the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say we blast off and nuke the site from space...it's the only way to be sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28568421</id>
	<title>2 wrongs don't make a right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246556880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only are fiat waivers of liablity an unsound basis for both commerce and public policy, but the CDA, which is unconstitutional as all fuck and should have been ruled so by now, should at least not be perverted to ends for whtch it was not intended. It might have got Kaspersky off the hook here, but it's a rotten of them, or their lawyers, to shore up a shitty law with an unfortuate precedent.  I can see all kinds of unintended consequences coming from this judge's decision. Probably best not elaborated upon considering how larcenous some outfits are.</p><p>IANAL, but what is Zango's claim here? Tortous interference? Only time I ever see Zango is on Conficker/SpywareProtect scareware infected machines. What contract, in other words? And let Zango explain its close association with trojans, keyloggers, spyware, etc. to a jury. And/or to a criminal grand jury.  Look, if you or I did what Zango did, and caused the amount of damage they have, we'd be up on Patriot level terrorist "hacking",  computer fraud and abuse, and conspiracy charges. They put on suits, contract with advertisers, and "it's for business" so it's ok?</p><p>Fucking bullshit. Kaspersky should go for a jury trial, countersue,  and talk long and hard with a prosecutor about criminal charges and RICO. .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only are fiat waivers of liablity an unsound basis for both commerce and public policy , but the CDA , which is unconstitutional as all fuck and should have been ruled so by now , should at least not be perverted to ends for whtch it was not intended .
It might have got Kaspersky off the hook here , but it 's a rotten of them , or their lawyers , to shore up a shitty law with an unfortuate precedent .
I can see all kinds of unintended consequences coming from this judge 's decision .
Probably best not elaborated upon considering how larcenous some outfits are.IANAL , but what is Zango 's claim here ?
Tortous interference ?
Only time I ever see Zango is on Conficker/SpywareProtect scareware infected machines .
What contract , in other words ?
And let Zango explain its close association with trojans , keyloggers , spyware , etc .
to a jury .
And/or to a criminal grand jury .
Look , if you or I did what Zango did , and caused the amount of damage they have , we 'd be up on Patriot level terrorist " hacking " , computer fraud and abuse , and conspiracy charges .
They put on suits , contract with advertisers , and " it 's for business " so it 's ok ? Fucking bullshit .
Kaspersky should go for a jury trial , countersue , and talk long and hard with a prosecutor about criminal charges and RICO .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only are fiat waivers of liablity an unsound basis for both commerce and public policy, but the CDA, which is unconstitutional as all fuck and should have been ruled so by now, should at least not be perverted to ends for whtch it was not intended.
It might have got Kaspersky off the hook here, but it's a rotten of them, or their lawyers, to shore up a shitty law with an unfortuate precedent.
I can see all kinds of unintended consequences coming from this judge's decision.
Probably best not elaborated upon considering how larcenous some outfits are.IANAL, but what is Zango's claim here?
Tortous interference?
Only time I ever see Zango is on Conficker/SpywareProtect scareware infected machines.
What contract, in other words?
And let Zango explain its close association with trojans, keyloggers, spyware, etc.
to a jury.
And/or to a criminal grand jury.
Look, if you or I did what Zango did, and caused the amount of damage they have, we'd be up on Patriot level terrorist "hacking",  computer fraud and abuse, and conspiracy charges.
They put on suits, contract with advertisers, and "it's for business" so it's ok?Fucking bullshit.
Kaspersky should go for a jury trial, countersue,  and talk long and hard with a prosecutor about criminal charges and RICO.
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559673</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246557360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I looked it up:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Zango, formerly ePIPO, 180solutions and Hotbar</p></div><p>Oh look, they've had four different names, because they have to keep running away from how scummy they are.<br>KILL IT WITH FIRE!</p></div><p>No, nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I looked it up : Zango , formerly ePIPO , 180solutions and HotbarOh look , they 've had four different names , because they have to keep running away from how scummy they are.KILL IT WITH FIRE ! No , nuke it from orbit .
It 's the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I looked it up:Zango, formerly ePIPO, 180solutions and HotbarOh look, they've had four different names, because they have to keep running away from how scummy they are.KILL IT WITH FIRE!No, nuke it from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560319</id>
	<title>Re:What's more disturbing</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1246559160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal?</p></div><p>Well, the court was deciding if Kaspersky was illegally interfering with Zango's business and customers. That's been a role of teh court in the US for a long time.  You can be held liable for interfering with someone else's business; the flip side of this is if someone's software blocked you from installing a competitors or accessing their web pages, even if you wanted to use the competitor product as well.</p><p>And to stave off the inevitable "but Zango is evil and so deserved it..." responses:</p><p>Yes, and I think the court was correct in let Kaspersky block them; however,</p><p>simply because we may not like a business model does not mean that it should be illegal or that others should automatically be allowed to interfere with it.</p><p>That's why, to my non-legal eye, I  don't like that this appears to be a rather narrow decision hinging on specific application of a statute; it does appear to open the door to more egarious behavior by others.  For example, could a computer manufacturer block installation of any products it wants under the guise of being an "interactive service provider" by having a machine phone home to get an OK to install?</p><p>Should Apple be allowed to block iPhone apps it deems offensive from working an an iPhone that's been jail-broken??</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal ? Well , the court was deciding if Kaspersky was illegally interfering with Zango 's business and customers .
That 's been a role of teh court in the US for a long time .
You can be held liable for interfering with someone else 's business ; the flip side of this is if someone 's software blocked you from installing a competitors or accessing their web pages , even if you wanted to use the competitor product as well.And to stave off the inevitable " but Zango is evil and so deserved it... " responses : Yes , and I think the court was correct in let Kaspersky block them ; however,simply because we may not like a business model does not mean that it should be illegal or that others should automatically be allowed to interfere with it.That 's why , to my non-legal eye , I do n't like that this appears to be a rather narrow decision hinging on specific application of a statute ; it does appear to open the door to more egarious behavior by others .
For example , could a computer manufacturer block installation of any products it wants under the guise of being an " interactive service provider " by having a machine phone home to get an OK to install ? Should Apple be allowed to block iPhone apps it deems offensive from working an an iPhone that 's been jail-broken ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal?Well, the court was deciding if Kaspersky was illegally interfering with Zango's business and customers.
That's been a role of teh court in the US for a long time.
You can be held liable for interfering with someone else's business; the flip side of this is if someone's software blocked you from installing a competitors or accessing their web pages, even if you wanted to use the competitor product as well.And to stave off the inevitable "but Zango is evil and so deserved it..." responses:Yes, and I think the court was correct in let Kaspersky block them; however,simply because we may not like a business model does not mean that it should be illegal or that others should automatically be allowed to interfere with it.That's why, to my non-legal eye, I  don't like that this appears to be a rather narrow decision hinging on specific application of a statute; it does appear to open the door to more egarious behavior by others.
For example, could a computer manufacturer block installation of any products it wants under the guise of being an "interactive service provider" by having a machine phone home to get an OK to install?Should Apple be allowed to block iPhone apps it deems offensive from working an an iPhone that's been jail-broken?
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28572381</id>
	<title>The quoted clause, however . . .</title>
	<author>Rambo Tribble</author>
	<datestamp>1246640100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>. . . sounds like an open invitation to hot and cold running censorship straight from your ISP's tap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
sounds like an open invitation to hot and cold running censorship straight from your ISP 's tap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
sounds like an open invitation to hot and cold running censorship straight from your ISP's tap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559001</id>
	<title>As long...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246555140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as the anti-malware gives me the choice and some basic information they can clasify Firefox as malware.</p><p>Chances are if you don't recognize the software name it was either installed by the OEM or was installed without your knowing...</p><p>Plus the open market will sort this sort of thing out. If they start clasfiy incorrectly no one will use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the anti-malware gives me the choice and some basic information they can clasify Firefox as malware.Chances are if you do n't recognize the software name it was either installed by the OEM or was installed without your knowing...Plus the open market will sort this sort of thing out .
If they start clasfiy incorrectly no one will use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the anti-malware gives me the choice and some basic information they can clasify Firefox as malware.Chances are if you don't recognize the software name it was either installed by the OEM or was installed without your knowing...Plus the open market will sort this sort of thing out.
If they start clasfiy incorrectly no one will use them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559549</id>
	<title>What's next?</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1246557000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Child molesters suing to have their name removed from the registered sex offenders databases?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Child molesters suing to have their name removed from the registered sex offenders databases ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Child molesters suing to have their name removed from the registered sex offenders databases?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015</id>
	<title>What's more disturbing</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1246555200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559623</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>NecroPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1246557240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only half my problem was the uninstall of these items.</p><p>The other half was the users (bless their hearts) who would reinstall them.  It took threatening to fire the next person who installed HotBar before they stopped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only half my problem was the uninstall of these items.The other half was the users ( bless their hearts ) who would reinstall them .
It took threatening to fire the next person who installed HotBar before they stopped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only half my problem was the uninstall of these items.The other half was the users (bless their hearts) who would reinstall them.
It took threatening to fire the next person who installed HotBar before they stopped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560515</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1246559700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sigh! It's salt, then till.  That way the salt gets worked into the soil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh !
It 's salt , then till .
That way the salt gets worked into the soil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh!
It's salt, then till.
That way the salt gets worked into the soil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28563813</id>
	<title>Re:What's more disturbing</title>
	<author>Repossessed</author>
	<datestamp>1246526940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to realize *how* Zango lost in the lower court.</p><p>There's a bit of the law, meant for internet filter companies, that says you can't sue if someone filters your site/product incorrectly.</p><p>Zango getting trounced in court is a good thing of course (they should have flat out arrested them when they showed up to the courthouse), but this law being upheld for a new, unintended purpose of the original bill, leaves legitimate products without recourse as well.</p><p>Also, *anyone* can file an appeal, prior to the SCOTUS level the courts have to hear it, even if its insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to realize * how * Zango lost in the lower court.There 's a bit of the law , meant for internet filter companies , that says you ca n't sue if someone filters your site/product incorrectly.Zango getting trounced in court is a good thing of course ( they should have flat out arrested them when they showed up to the courthouse ) , but this law being upheld for a new , unintended purpose of the original bill , leaves legitimate products without recourse as well.Also , * anyone * can file an appeal , prior to the SCOTUS level the courts have to hear it , even if its insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to realize *how* Zango lost in the lower court.There's a bit of the law, meant for internet filter companies, that says you can't sue if someone filters your site/product incorrectly.Zango getting trounced in court is a good thing of course (they should have flat out arrested them when they showed up to the courthouse), but this law being upheld for a new, unintended purpose of the original bill, leaves legitimate products without recourse as well.Also, *anyone* can file an appeal, prior to the SCOTUS level the courts have to hear it, even if its insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558917</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246554840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Top 5 post?</p><p>Maybe calling it Malware gives it some sort of legitimate use?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Top 5 post ? Maybe calling it Malware gives it some sort of legitimate use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Top 5 post?Maybe calling it Malware gives it some sort of legitimate use?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559573</id>
	<title>Re:Not that this ruling is a bad thing...</title>
	<author>MasterOfMagic</author>
	<datestamp>1246557060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications\_Decency\_Act#Legal\_challenges" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Part of the CDA was struck down</a> [wikipedia.org], primarily the parts of the CDA dealing with protecting children from indecent speech.  The CDA was amended by Congress to remove the sections the court found unconstitutional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the CDA was struck down [ wikipedia.org ] , primarily the parts of the CDA dealing with protecting children from indecent speech .
The CDA was amended by Congress to remove the sections the court found unconstitutional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the CDA was struck down [wikipedia.org], primarily the parts of the CDA dealing with protecting children from indecent speech.
The CDA was amended by Congress to remove the sections the court found unconstitutional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560455</id>
	<title>Re:Problem is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246559460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, I suspect there might be a considerable outcry if AVG decided to make their free tool treat various BitTorrent clients as "objectionable" but their paid-for version did not.</p></div><p>The only reason that is not a problem, is because the end user chooses to install an antivirus product.  If it tells them that all versions of a known good and known clean install of a program are 'bad', and that program is something the user wants also, they have the ability to choose.</p><p>The bittorrent client makers should NOT have the right to sue the AV company for listing them.<br>The end user however can and should be able to sue for being lied to on the services they are paying for (Fraud)</p><p>And no comments for "grandama type users that don't know better", because those types of users will always not know better, nor do they really truly care what goes on in the depths of their appliance (aka computer)  so this won't even be a problem or them.<br>If it was, they could either fix it as above, or have their normal 'computer guy' take care of it for them.</p><p>But in any case, it should be up to the owner of the machine to decide how it operates.  Always.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I suspect there might be a considerable outcry if AVG decided to make their free tool treat various BitTorrent clients as " objectionable " but their paid-for version did not.The only reason that is not a problem , is because the end user chooses to install an antivirus product .
If it tells them that all versions of a known good and known clean install of a program are 'bad ' , and that program is something the user wants also , they have the ability to choose.The bittorrent client makers should NOT have the right to sue the AV company for listing them.The end user however can and should be able to sue for being lied to on the services they are paying for ( Fraud ) And no comments for " grandama type users that do n't know better " , because those types of users will always not know better , nor do they really truly care what goes on in the depths of their appliance ( aka computer ) so this wo n't even be a problem or them.If it was , they could either fix it as above , or have their normal 'computer guy ' take care of it for them.But in any case , it should be up to the owner of the machine to decide how it operates .
Always .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I suspect there might be a considerable outcry if AVG decided to make their free tool treat various BitTorrent clients as "objectionable" but their paid-for version did not.The only reason that is not a problem, is because the end user chooses to install an antivirus product.
If it tells them that all versions of a known good and known clean install of a program are 'bad', and that program is something the user wants also, they have the ability to choose.The bittorrent client makers should NOT have the right to sue the AV company for listing them.The end user however can and should be able to sue for being lied to on the services they are paying for (Fraud)And no comments for "grandama type users that don't know better", because those types of users will always not know better, nor do they really truly care what goes on in the depths of their appliance (aka computer)  so this won't even be a problem or them.If it was, they could either fix it as above, or have their normal 'computer guy' take care of it for them.But in any case, it should be up to the owner of the machine to decide how it operates.
Always.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559437</id>
	<title>Re:What's more disturbing</title>
	<author>fataugie</author>
	<datestamp>1246556640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think even more alarming is the fact that Zango didn't get laughed out of the courtroom</i></p><p>You mean like SCO?</p><p>Thank you, thank you....let the Karma flow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think even more alarming is the fact that Zango did n't get laughed out of the courtroomYou mean like SCO ? Thank you , thank you....let the Karma flow ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think even more alarming is the fact that Zango didn't get laughed out of the courtroomYou mean like SCO?Thank you, thank you....let the Karma flow ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560009</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>Abreu</author>
	<datestamp>1246558260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.killitwithfire.com/" title="killitwithfire.com">YES, KILL IT WITH FIRE!</a> [killitwithfire.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YES , KILL IT WITH FIRE !
[ killitwithfire.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YES, KILL IT WITH FIRE!
[killitwithfire.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949</id>
	<title>Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246554960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I looked it up:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Zango, formerly ePIPO, 180solutions and Hotbar</p></div><p>Oh look, they've had four different names, because they have to keep running away from how scummy they are.<br>KILL IT WITH FIRE!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I looked it up : Zango , formerly ePIPO , 180solutions and HotbarOh look , they 've had four different names , because they have to keep running away from how scummy they are.KILL IT WITH FIRE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I looked it up:Zango, formerly ePIPO, 180solutions and HotbarOh look, they've had four different names, because they have to keep running away from how scummy they are.KILL IT WITH FIRE!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560835</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1246560600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MY GOD, MAN!</p><p>What would you do if they **really** pissed you off?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cringes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MY GOD , MAN ! What would you do if they * * really * * pissed you off ?
/cringes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MY GOD, MAN!What would you do if they **really** pissed you off?
/cringes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559143</id>
	<title>Not that this ruling is a bad thing...</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1246555680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pleased with this, but I'm confused.</p><p>Wasn't the CDA shot down way back?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pleased with this , but I 'm confused.Was n't the CDA shot down way back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pleased with this, but I'm confused.Wasn't the CDA shot down way back?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559189</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>riboch</author>
	<datestamp>1246555860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It's a trick. Get an axe."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's a trick .
Get an axe .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's a trick.
Get an axe.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559741</id>
	<title>1st Amendment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246557540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it's come to this.  Kaspersky has to rely on a crappy law to avoid getting in trouble.  This should be simple - freedom of speech!  And the scummyness or otherwise of the plaintiff (or the defendant) should not be relevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's come to this .
Kaspersky has to rely on a crappy law to avoid getting in trouble .
This should be simple - freedom of speech !
And the scummyness or otherwise of the plaintiff ( or the defendant ) should not be relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's come to this.
Kaspersky has to rely on a crappy law to avoid getting in trouble.
This should be simple - freedom of speech!
And the scummyness or otherwise of the plaintiff (or the defendant) should not be relevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28561881</id>
	<title>Re:1st Amendment</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1246564020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 1st Ammendment protects expression, not action.  Even the protection on a written piece is diminished if it is functional.  With program code, your "audience" is a machine; it cannot appreciate any ideas you might exprses, but can only function according to your instructions.</p><p>I expect it would be a rare day that software functionality would be protected by the 1st Ammendment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1st Ammendment protects expression , not action .
Even the protection on a written piece is diminished if it is functional .
With program code , your " audience " is a machine ; it can not appreciate any ideas you might exprses , but can only function according to your instructions.I expect it would be a rare day that software functionality would be protected by the 1st Ammendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1st Ammendment protects expression, not action.
Even the protection on a written piece is diminished if it is functional.
With program code, your "audience" is a machine; it cannot appreciate any ideas you might exprses, but can only function according to your instructions.I expect it would be a rare day that software functionality would be protected by the 1st Ammendment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560033</id>
	<title>Re:What's more disturbing</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1246558320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal?</i></p><p>Like everything else, that would depend on what your program does and what laws apply, wouldn't it?</p><p>Say you're a convicted monopolist, and your program does<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... see where I'm going?</p><p>As regards this case, if a claim of tortious interference with contractual rights, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, trade libel, and unjust enrichment can be made, then yes, you may need a court precedent.</p><p>That's not to say, however, that reasonable-sounding but legally-meaningless statements won't get you mod points on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal ? Like everything else , that would depend on what your program does and what laws apply , would n't it ? Say you 're a convicted monopolist , and your program does ... see where I 'm going ? As regards this case , if a claim of tortious interference with contractual rights , violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act , trade libel , and unjust enrichment can be made , then yes , you may need a court precedent.That 's not to say , however , that reasonable-sounding but legally-meaningless statements wo n't get you mod points on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal?Like everything else, that would depend on what your program does and what laws apply, wouldn't it?Say you're a convicted monopolist, and your program does ... see where I'm going?As regards this case, if a claim of tortious interference with contractual rights, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, trade libel, and unjust enrichment can be made, then yes, you may need a court precedent.That's not to say, however, that reasonable-sounding but legally-meaningless statements won't get you mod points on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559575</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246557120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking of fire, holy Christ, my ass is on fucking FIRE! My hemorrhoids are flaring up and my 350 lb lard ass just won't stop itching like fire ants are crawling around biting my stinky blood-filled balloons on my ass. Anybody have any cream?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of fire , holy Christ , my ass is on fucking FIRE !
My hemorrhoids are flaring up and my 350 lb lard ass just wo n't stop itching like fire ants are crawling around biting my stinky blood-filled balloons on my ass .
Anybody have any cream ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of fire, holy Christ, my ass is on fucking FIRE!
My hemorrhoids are flaring up and my 350 lb lard ass just won't stop itching like fire ants are crawling around biting my stinky blood-filled balloons on my ass.
Anybody have any cream?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559165</id>
	<title>Re:What's more disturbing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246555800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think even more alarming is the fact that Zango didn't get laughed out of the courtroom, and that this case made it all the way to the 9th circuit court of appeals.

Back when they were 180Solutions, they were one of the most notorious adware companies around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think even more alarming is the fact that Zango did n't get laughed out of the courtroom , and that this case made it all the way to the 9th circuit court of appeals .
Back when they were 180Solutions , they were one of the most notorious adware companies around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think even more alarming is the fact that Zango didn't get laughed out of the courtroom, and that this case made it all the way to the 9th circuit court of appeals.
Back when they were 180Solutions, they were one of the most notorious adware companies around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28561853</id>
	<title>Re:As long...</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1246563960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really.</p><p>The open market is very stupid when it comes to software for the most part.  They just go with whatever is installed with little to no research into what the program actually runs like or long term performance.  It is mostly advertising that gets new software onto computers with a little word of mouth after that.  Problems are only noticed when the computer stops "running like it used to" or shows other major faults.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really.The open market is very stupid when it comes to software for the most part .
They just go with whatever is installed with little to no research into what the program actually runs like or long term performance .
It is mostly advertising that gets new software onto computers with a little word of mouth after that .
Problems are only noticed when the computer stops " running like it used to " or shows other major faults .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.The open market is very stupid when it comes to software for the most part.
They just go with whatever is installed with little to no research into what the program actually runs like or long term performance.
It is mostly advertising that gets new software onto computers with a little word of mouth after that.
Problems are only noticed when the computer stops "running like it used to" or shows other major faults.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559921</id>
	<title>Problem is...</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1246558020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see any standard that says what, precisely, "objectionable" materials might be.  If this is used only in a very limited sense, it is probably OK.</p><p>However, I suspect there might be a considerable outcry if AVG decided to make their free tool treat various BitTorrent clients as "objectionable" but their paid-for version did not.  Without extremely strict well-defined guidelines for what constitutes "objectionable" this sort of thing can be used to target anything and now there is a court precedent saying you can't sue them.</p><p>Let's see, would the MPAA consider BitTorrent to be objectionable?</p><p>How about a nice web-tool for searching out and downloading child porn?</p><p>What about complete instructions for altering a cell phone to make free, untracable calls?</p><p>Should an anti-virus company be able to delete files for these sorts of things?  Why not?  I'm sure they are objectionable to someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any standard that says what , precisely , " objectionable " materials might be .
If this is used only in a very limited sense , it is probably OK.However , I suspect there might be a considerable outcry if AVG decided to make their free tool treat various BitTorrent clients as " objectionable " but their paid-for version did not .
Without extremely strict well-defined guidelines for what constitutes " objectionable " this sort of thing can be used to target anything and now there is a court precedent saying you ca n't sue them.Let 's see , would the MPAA consider BitTorrent to be objectionable ? How about a nice web-tool for searching out and downloading child porn ? What about complete instructions for altering a cell phone to make free , untracable calls ? Should an anti-virus company be able to delete files for these sorts of things ?
Why not ?
I 'm sure they are objectionable to someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any standard that says what, precisely, "objectionable" materials might be.
If this is used only in a very limited sense, it is probably OK.However, I suspect there might be a considerable outcry if AVG decided to make their free tool treat various BitTorrent clients as "objectionable" but their paid-for version did not.
Without extremely strict well-defined guidelines for what constitutes "objectionable" this sort of thing can be used to target anything and now there is a court precedent saying you can't sue them.Let's see, would the MPAA consider BitTorrent to be objectionable?How about a nice web-tool for searching out and downloading child porn?What about complete instructions for altering a cell phone to make free, untracable calls?Should an anti-virus company be able to delete files for these sorts of things?
Why not?
I'm sure they are objectionable to someone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28562207</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, you didn't have antivirus installed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you did n't have antivirus installed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you didn't have antivirus installed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28567927</id>
	<title>Have a think about this angle.</title>
	<author>therufus</author>
	<datestamp>1246551960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zango sues Kaspersky for interfering with their business model. This is a legitimate move on Zango's part (and yes, I know they're scum but go with me here).</p><p>Kaspersky blocked Zango in the first place for being malware. What is malware? There is software out there that installs on a computer for the purpose of using customer data to make money for the software company or some related company. However to be classed as malware it has to be either installed via deceit or be non compliant when a user is performing an uninstall.</p><p>If Zango's business practices are intended to obtain money by deceit, and the courts have just agreed to that fact via the verdict in the Zango vs Kaspersky case, then it seems that not only is Zango scum, but also practicing in ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES.</p><p>Let me just reiterate that. It is entirely plausible to think that Zango is running an illegal business and can be sued/shut down. Therefore, any company that is involved in malware activities could be operating illegally too. This win for Kaspersky could open the floodgates and rid the internet (partially) of spyware.</p><p>Am I going crazy here, or did what I just type make complete sense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zango sues Kaspersky for interfering with their business model .
This is a legitimate move on Zango 's part ( and yes , I know they 're scum but go with me here ) .Kaspersky blocked Zango in the first place for being malware .
What is malware ?
There is software out there that installs on a computer for the purpose of using customer data to make money for the software company or some related company .
However to be classed as malware it has to be either installed via deceit or be non compliant when a user is performing an uninstall.If Zango 's business practices are intended to obtain money by deceit , and the courts have just agreed to that fact via the verdict in the Zango vs Kaspersky case , then it seems that not only is Zango scum , but also practicing in ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES.Let me just reiterate that .
It is entirely plausible to think that Zango is running an illegal business and can be sued/shut down .
Therefore , any company that is involved in malware activities could be operating illegally too .
This win for Kaspersky could open the floodgates and rid the internet ( partially ) of spyware.Am I going crazy here , or did what I just type make complete sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zango sues Kaspersky for interfering with their business model.
This is a legitimate move on Zango's part (and yes, I know they're scum but go with me here).Kaspersky blocked Zango in the first place for being malware.
What is malware?
There is software out there that installs on a computer for the purpose of using customer data to make money for the software company or some related company.
However to be classed as malware it has to be either installed via deceit or be non compliant when a user is performing an uninstall.If Zango's business practices are intended to obtain money by deceit, and the courts have just agreed to that fact via the verdict in the Zango vs Kaspersky case, then it seems that not only is Zango scum, but also practicing in ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES.Let me just reiterate that.
It is entirely plausible to think that Zango is running an illegal business and can be sued/shut down.
Therefore, any company that is involved in malware activities could be operating illegally too.
This win for Kaspersky could open the floodgates and rid the internet (partially) of spyware.Am I going crazy here, or did what I just type make complete sense?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28562711</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1246566600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh.  Vikings are more entertaining.  And they have cooler hats.</p><p>Oh, and you might skip the separate salting of the soil and nuking stages, and instead just use enhanced-radiation devices ("neutron bombs") with cobalt jackets.  Make sure you use ground bursts too, they're dirtier.  Just don't stand downwind... the fallout's a bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh .
Vikings are more entertaining .
And they have cooler hats.Oh , and you might skip the separate salting of the soil and nuking stages , and instead just use enhanced-radiation devices ( " neutron bombs " ) with cobalt jackets .
Make sure you use ground bursts too , they 're dirtier .
Just do n't stand downwind... the fallout 's a bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.
Vikings are more entertaining.
And they have cooler hats.Oh, and you might skip the separate salting of the soil and nuking stages, and instead just use enhanced-radiation devices ("neutron bombs") with cobalt jackets.
Make sure you use ground bursts too, they're dirtier.
Just don't stand downwind... the fallout's a bitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560141</id>
	<title>ISPs can now block ads</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1246558620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This expands the "safe harbor" of the CDA to cover ad-blockers.  Now, ISP's can offer ad removal as a service.  Corporate firewalls can provide ad-blocking. This would cut web traffic way down and speed up browsing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This expands the " safe harbor " of the CDA to cover ad-blockers .
Now , ISP 's can offer ad removal as a service .
Corporate firewalls can provide ad-blocking .
This would cut web traffic way down and speed up browsing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This expands the "safe harbor" of the CDA to cover ad-blockers.
Now, ISP's can offer ad removal as a service.
Corporate firewalls can provide ad-blocking.
This would cut web traffic way down and speed up browsing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28563821</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1246527000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I see you prefer the "pansy" approach.  Hopefully someone else will be sufficiently peeved to propose something a bit harsher.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you prefer the " pansy " approach .
Hopefully someone else will be sufficiently peeved to propose something a bit harsher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you prefer the "pansy" approach.
Hopefully someone else will be sufficiently peeved to propose something a bit harsher.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559771</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't know what Zango was</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1246557660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to have problems with it.  And then I stopped doing tech support as a career and started using Linux personally.</p><p>Ignorance is bliss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to have problems with it .
And then I stopped doing tech support as a career and started using Linux personally.Ignorance is bliss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to have problems with it.
And then I stopped doing tech support as a career and started using Linux personally.Ignorance is bliss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559507</id>
	<title>Re:What's more disturbing</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1246556880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it does make a sense, a bit. Think if Microsoft (or Apple - for e.g. iPhone) would prohibit everything made by Brian Gordon.</p><p>Obviously situation here is quite different, but Zango definitely is (was?) trying to make thing look the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it does make a sense , a bit .
Think if Microsoft ( or Apple - for e.g .
iPhone ) would prohibit everything made by Brian Gordon.Obviously situation here is quite different , but Zango definitely is ( was ?
) trying to make thing look the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it does make a sense, a bit.
Think if Microsoft (or Apple - for e.g.
iPhone) would prohibit everything made by Brian Gordon.Obviously situation here is quite different, but Zango definitely is (was?
) trying to make thing look the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559275</id>
	<title>Serves them right.</title>
	<author>LikwidCirkel</author>
	<datestamp>1246556160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I certainly remember 180-Solutions for being the last straw for me ever using MSIE.  Several times they got me with their creative drive-by-installs back in the day, and those were just about the only malware infections I've had in my life.  They're an absolute scumbag company and I'm glad about the outcome of this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly remember 180-Solutions for being the last straw for me ever using MSIE .
Several times they got me with their creative drive-by-installs back in the day , and those were just about the only malware infections I 've had in my life .
They 're an absolute scumbag company and I 'm glad about the outcome of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly remember 180-Solutions for being the last straw for me ever using MSIE.
Several times they got me with their creative drive-by-installs back in the day, and those were just about the only malware infections I've had in my life.
They're an absolute scumbag company and I'm glad about the outcome of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28562207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28562711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28586437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28562509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28561881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28563813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28561853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1355210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1355210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28562207
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28586437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28562711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1355210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28567927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1355210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28561881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1355210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1355210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1355210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28561853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1355210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28562509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1355210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28563813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559437
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1355210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1355210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28559921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28560455
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1355210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1355210.28558965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
