<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_02_2156227</id>
	<title>DOJ Confirms Google Antitrust Investigation</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246531320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader points to Digital Daily, writing <i>"Looks like the fireworks have begun early in Mountain View. On Thursday afternoon, the Department of Justice officially notified Google that <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/">it is investigating its book deal</a> for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader points to Digital Daily , writing " Looks like the fireworks have begun early in Mountain View .
On Thursday afternoon , the Department of Justice officially notified Google that it is investigating its book deal for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader points to Digital Daily, writing "Looks like the fireworks have begun early in Mountain View.
On Thursday afternoon, the Department of Justice officially notified Google that it is investigating its book deal for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570989</id>
	<title>Re:Serves you right!</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1246631880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Even if they get brought to court and convicted of some antitrust charge, history has shown us the the punishments directed at corporations are inconsequential.</i>
<br>
<br>
Tell that to Arthur Andersen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they get brought to court and convicted of some antitrust charge , history has shown us the the punishments directed at corporations are inconsequential .
Tell that to Arthur Andersen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they get brought to court and convicted of some antitrust charge, history has shown us the the punishments directed at corporations are inconsequential.
Tell that to Arthur Andersen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567189</id>
	<title>Re:Serves you right!</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1246545060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "too big to fail" argument was made about AIG, and is largely true.</p><p>AIG insured so many customers that no other company would have had the capital necessary to pick up the slack, not to mention that an AIG bankruptcy would have left a huge number of individuals and businesses around the globe without insurance.  Liquidating $800+ billion of assets isn't easy when no other investors have that sort of capital.</p><p>(This all doesn't mean the bailout was conducted particularly well.  That's an entirely different discussion.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " too big to fail " argument was made about AIG , and is largely true.AIG insured so many customers that no other company would have had the capital necessary to pick up the slack , not to mention that an AIG bankruptcy would have left a huge number of individuals and businesses around the globe without insurance .
Liquidating $ 800 + billion of assets is n't easy when no other investors have that sort of capital .
( This all does n't mean the bailout was conducted particularly well .
That 's an entirely different discussion .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "too big to fail" argument was made about AIG, and is largely true.AIG insured so many customers that no other company would have had the capital necessary to pick up the slack, not to mention that an AIG bankruptcy would have left a huge number of individuals and businesses around the globe without insurance.
Liquidating $800+ billion of assets isn't easy when no other investors have that sort of capital.
(This all doesn't mean the bailout was conducted particularly well.
That's an entirely different discussion.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570965</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with this, as long as.....</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246631760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm ok with this, as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.</p></div><p>Nah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... all those old-line organizations seem to keep getting a free pass from any investigation. My guess is that they've been greasing the palms of numerous public officials for so long that to investigate them would air way too much dirty laundry. So the Feds pay them no attention, even though they're as dirty as the RIAA in their own way and just as deserving of investigation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm ok with this , as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.Nah ... all those old-line organizations seem to keep getting a free pass from any investigation .
My guess is that they 've been greasing the palms of numerous public officials for so long that to investigate them would air way too much dirty laundry .
So the Feds pay them no attention , even though they 're as dirty as the RIAA in their own way and just as deserving of investigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm ok with this, as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.Nah ... all those old-line organizations seem to keep getting a free pass from any investigation.
My guess is that they've been greasing the palms of numerous public officials for so long that to investigate them would air way too much dirty laundry.
So the Feds pay them no attention, even though they're as dirty as the RIAA in their own way and just as deserving of investigation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566467</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust punishes success</title>
	<author>Bemopolis</author>
	<datestamp>1246539960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yet another case of punishing business for success.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I prefer that to what we've seen lately, which is rewarding companies for failures of sufficient global impact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another case of punishing business for success .
I prefer that to what we 've seen lately , which is rewarding companies for failures of sufficient global impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another case of punishing business for success.
I prefer that to what we've seen lately, which is rewarding companies for failures of sufficient global impact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719</id>
	<title>Serves you right!</title>
	<author>pablo\_max</author>
	<datestamp>1246535700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stupid companies.. Stop getting too big! Stop making so much money! Stop being so much better than your competition that everyone only uses your product. Being competitive means allowing the other guys to catch up! It also means you can't branch out too much..so keep your focus narrow.</p><p>Anyone else think this is a little over zealous?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid companies.. Stop getting too big !
Stop making so much money !
Stop being so much better than your competition that everyone only uses your product .
Being competitive means allowing the other guys to catch up !
It also means you ca n't branch out too much..so keep your focus narrow.Anyone else think this is a little over zealous ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid companies.. Stop getting too big!
Stop making so much money!
Stop being so much better than your competition that everyone only uses your product.
Being competitive means allowing the other guys to catch up!
It also means you can't branch out too much..so keep your focus narrow.Anyone else think this is a little over zealous?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565899</id>
	<title>Government needs money</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1246536720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google has money.<br>
"Investigation" is simply a euphemism for "let's see how much we can extort from them."<br>
In this economic climate, to pull this kind of shit on a company that is not begging for taxpayer money, is utter bullshit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has money .
" Investigation " is simply a euphemism for " let 's see how much we can extort from them .
" In this economic climate , to pull this kind of shit on a company that is not begging for taxpayer money , is utter bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has money.
"Investigation" is simply a euphemism for "let's see how much we can extort from them.
"
In this economic climate, to pull this kind of shit on a company that is not begging for taxpayer money, is utter bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568097</id>
	<title>a simple explanation</title>
	<author>JBaustian</author>
	<datestamp>1246553340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly the Google executives did not donate enough money to Democratic candidates in 2008. That's the only sure way to prevent unpleasant investigations by bureaucrats or congressmen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly the Google executives did not donate enough money to Democratic candidates in 2008 .
That 's the only sure way to prevent unpleasant investigations by bureaucrats or congressmen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly the Google executives did not donate enough money to Democratic candidates in 2008.
That's the only sure way to prevent unpleasant investigations by bureaucrats or congressmen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566779</id>
	<title>I can see it now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246542000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Obama standing there posed like the Colossus of Rhodes as his nuts erupt all over your adoring grille, and he has a good laugh at your expense while you sing psalms to him and offer him burnt offerings. I've never heard of a ruler who has such contempt for their subjects since Marie Antoinette, while at the same time maintaining such loyalty. It's amazing, really. I wonder how long it will take for the last Obamabot to finally admit that change = more of the same with a double portion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Obama standing there posed like the Colossus of Rhodes as his nuts erupt all over your adoring grille , and he has a good laugh at your expense while you sing psalms to him and offer him burnt offerings .
I 've never heard of a ruler who has such contempt for their subjects since Marie Antoinette , while at the same time maintaining such loyalty .
It 's amazing , really .
I wonder how long it will take for the last Obamabot to finally admit that change = more of the same with a double portion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Obama standing there posed like the Colossus of Rhodes as his nuts erupt all over your adoring grille, and he has a good laugh at your expense while you sing psalms to him and offer him burnt offerings.
I've never heard of a ruler who has such contempt for their subjects since Marie Antoinette, while at the same time maintaining such loyalty.
It's amazing, really.
I wonder how long it will take for the last Obamabot to finally admit that change = more of the same with a double portion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566125</id>
	<title>Money talks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246538100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft was investigated during the Clinton administration.  Microsoft gives very little money to the Democrats.<br>The Microsoft antitrust suit was largely dropped during the Bush administration.  Microsoft is a top Republican contributer.</p><p>Personally, I find it fascinating that the Obama administration is investigating Google despite the fact that Google is a heavy Democrat contributer.  Perhaps Google will start supporting the Republicans now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft was investigated during the Clinton administration .
Microsoft gives very little money to the Democrats.The Microsoft antitrust suit was largely dropped during the Bush administration .
Microsoft is a top Republican contributer.Personally , I find it fascinating that the Obama administration is investigating Google despite the fact that Google is a heavy Democrat contributer .
Perhaps Google will start supporting the Republicans now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft was investigated during the Clinton administration.
Microsoft gives very little money to the Democrats.The Microsoft antitrust suit was largely dropped during the Bush administration.
Microsoft is a top Republican contributer.Personally, I find it fascinating that the Obama administration is investigating Google despite the fact that Google is a heavy Democrat contributer.
Perhaps Google will start supporting the Republicans now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28574873</id>
	<title>Re:I'm ok with this, as long as.....</title>
	<author>calmansi</author>
	<datestamp>1246613880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm ok with this, as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.</p></div><p>Very good point, phantomfive: if the Authors Guild and the American Publishers Association had refrained from belatedly emulating the failed strategy of the music and video producers with their class action, then Google would have had to use the "fair use" argument. Which means that anyone else could have used the same argument to offer the same works, and there would be no monopoly issue.

<br>Right-holders on "non commercially available copyrighted works" could still have asked Google or whoever else to withdraw these works if they thought they had commercial potential. But works whose right-holders couldn't be found (real orphan works) or didn't care would have become available again - without any of the silly copy- and print-restriction tech measures (that don't work anyway) imposed by the AG and the APA in the settlement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm ok with this , as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.Very good point , phantomfive : if the Authors Guild and the American Publishers Association had refrained from belatedly emulating the failed strategy of the music and video producers with their class action , then Google would have had to use the " fair use " argument .
Which means that anyone else could have used the same argument to offer the same works , and there would be no monopoly issue .
Right-holders on " non commercially available copyrighted works " could still have asked Google or whoever else to withdraw these works if they thought they had commercial potential .
But works whose right-holders could n't be found ( real orphan works ) or did n't care would have become available again - without any of the silly copy- and print-restriction tech measures ( that do n't work anyway ) imposed by the AG and the APA in the settlement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm ok with this, as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.Very good point, phantomfive: if the Authors Guild and the American Publishers Association had refrained from belatedly emulating the failed strategy of the music and video producers with their class action, then Google would have had to use the "fair use" argument.
Which means that anyone else could have used the same argument to offer the same works, and there would be no monopoly issue.
Right-holders on "non commercially available copyrighted works" could still have asked Google or whoever else to withdraw these works if they thought they had commercial potential.
But works whose right-holders couldn't be found (real orphan works) or didn't care would have become available again - without any of the silly copy- and print-restriction tech measures (that don't work anyway) imposed by the AG and the APA in the settlement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567723</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust punishes success</title>
	<author>duncan bayne</author>
	<datestamp>1246549980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The economic well being of this nation certainly didn't benefit from it.</p></div></blockquote><p>A business is run for the benefit of its shareholders (if a listed company) or owners (if not).  Are you seriously arguing that the Government should force businesses to regard 'the common good' or 'the national good'?</p><p>That is, not just enforce laws against force &amp; fraud, but actually force businessmen to run companies for the benefit of others?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The economic well being of this nation certainly did n't benefit from it.A business is run for the benefit of its shareholders ( if a listed company ) or owners ( if not ) .
Are you seriously arguing that the Government should force businesses to regard 'the common good ' or 'the national good ' ? That is , not just enforce laws against force &amp; fraud , but actually force businessmen to run companies for the benefit of others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The economic well being of this nation certainly didn't benefit from it.A business is run for the benefit of its shareholders (if a listed company) or owners (if not).
Are you seriously arguing that the Government should force businesses to regard 'the common good' or 'the national good'?That is, not just enforce laws against force &amp; fraud, but actually force businessmen to run companies for the benefit of others?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565829</id>
	<title>Re:Serves you right!</title>
	<author>royallthefourth</author>
	<datestamp>1246536300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slow down a bit. They're being investigated, not prosecuted. Even if they get brought to court and convicted of some antitrust charge, history has shown us the the punishments directed at corporations are inconsequential.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slow down a bit .
They 're being investigated , not prosecuted .
Even if they get brought to court and convicted of some antitrust charge , history has shown us the the punishments directed at corporations are inconsequential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slow down a bit.
They're being investigated, not prosecuted.
Even if they get brought to court and convicted of some antitrust charge, history has shown us the the punishments directed at corporations are inconsequential.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567537</id>
	<title>Re:Serves you right!</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1246548060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying that companies must operate under the same principles as public schools where the stupidest kid sets the pace for everyone else?  That's brilliant.  I was under the impression that the whole notion of antitrust was participating in anti-competitive behaviors not out-competing others.</p><p>What has Google done to prevent Yahoo, Microsoft, or anyone else for that matter to secure a similar agreement with copyright holders of books so that they can create a competitor product?  Shall we next go after Toyota because more people want their products than they do GM or Chrysler?</p><p>Antitrust laws were created to protect society from organizations such as AT&amp;T, Clear Channel, Intel, Microsoft, etc. that do/did not compete on the merit of their products but on their ability to squeeze out or prevent competition from ever starting by engaging in aggressive and generally unethical practices.  Such companies do not focus on providing maximum societal benefit through their products and services but on maximizing their bottom line by any means possible usually to the detriment of society.</p><p>Can you provide a ration argument for how Google by enabling the dissemination of knowledge once locked in less accessible, much more difficult to search printed media is causing societal detriment?  Business paradigm shifts do not count as a society detriment.  Society is none-the-worse for having lost the need for horse drawn lauries roaming cities emptying out privies, telegraph operators, milkmen, or the local blacksmith.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying that companies must operate under the same principles as public schools where the stupidest kid sets the pace for everyone else ?
That 's brilliant .
I was under the impression that the whole notion of antitrust was participating in anti-competitive behaviors not out-competing others.What has Google done to prevent Yahoo , Microsoft , or anyone else for that matter to secure a similar agreement with copyright holders of books so that they can create a competitor product ?
Shall we next go after Toyota because more people want their products than they do GM or Chrysler ? Antitrust laws were created to protect society from organizations such as AT&amp;T , Clear Channel , Intel , Microsoft , etc .
that do/did not compete on the merit of their products but on their ability to squeeze out or prevent competition from ever starting by engaging in aggressive and generally unethical practices .
Such companies do not focus on providing maximum societal benefit through their products and services but on maximizing their bottom line by any means possible usually to the detriment of society.Can you provide a ration argument for how Google by enabling the dissemination of knowledge once locked in less accessible , much more difficult to search printed media is causing societal detriment ?
Business paradigm shifts do not count as a society detriment .
Society is none-the-worse for having lost the need for horse drawn lauries roaming cities emptying out privies , telegraph operators , milkmen , or the local blacksmith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying that companies must operate under the same principles as public schools where the stupidest kid sets the pace for everyone else?
That's brilliant.
I was under the impression that the whole notion of antitrust was participating in anti-competitive behaviors not out-competing others.What has Google done to prevent Yahoo, Microsoft, or anyone else for that matter to secure a similar agreement with copyright holders of books so that they can create a competitor product?
Shall we next go after Toyota because more people want their products than they do GM or Chrysler?Antitrust laws were created to protect society from organizations such as AT&amp;T, Clear Channel, Intel, Microsoft, etc.
that do/did not compete on the merit of their products but on their ability to squeeze out or prevent competition from ever starting by engaging in aggressive and generally unethical practices.
Such companies do not focus on providing maximum societal benefit through their products and services but on maximizing their bottom line by any means possible usually to the detriment of society.Can you provide a ration argument for how Google by enabling the dissemination of knowledge once locked in less accessible, much more difficult to search printed media is causing societal detriment?
Business paradigm shifts do not count as a society detriment.
Society is none-the-worse for having lost the need for horse drawn lauries roaming cities emptying out privies, telegraph operators, milkmen, or the local blacksmith.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567313</id>
	<title>Re:Serves you right!</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1246545960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it is not over zealous. An investigation does not mean that there is monopolistic behavior that just means Google has gotten big enough to possibly be monopolistic. The indicators are all there, which could mean nothing. The DOJ is just making sure it is truly not occurring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it is not over zealous .
An investigation does not mean that there is monopolistic behavior that just means Google has gotten big enough to possibly be monopolistic .
The indicators are all there , which could mean nothing .
The DOJ is just making sure it is truly not occurring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it is not over zealous.
An investigation does not mean that there is monopolistic behavior that just means Google has gotten big enough to possibly be monopolistic.
The indicators are all there, which could mean nothing.
The DOJ is just making sure it is truly not occurring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566123</id>
	<title>Re:Serves you right!</title>
	<author>Rycross</author>
	<datestamp>1246538100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll stop worrying about companies getting too big when I stop hearing about how companies are "Too big to fail."  Or when they aren't big enough to put serious economic pressure on other people/businesses.  Or when they aren't big enough to be able to legally harass people despite having a flimsy case.  Or when common people are able to routinely exact damages from them.</p><p>Until then, I'm perfectly happy with society telling companies that they are too big and need to limit their scope.  Large businesses have disproportionate power over me.  Even more so if there are only a few options.  I don't like being coerced, whether its by private companies or governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll stop worrying about companies getting too big when I stop hearing about how companies are " Too big to fail .
" Or when they are n't big enough to put serious economic pressure on other people/businesses .
Or when they are n't big enough to be able to legally harass people despite having a flimsy case .
Or when common people are able to routinely exact damages from them.Until then , I 'm perfectly happy with society telling companies that they are too big and need to limit their scope .
Large businesses have disproportionate power over me .
Even more so if there are only a few options .
I do n't like being coerced , whether its by private companies or governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll stop worrying about companies getting too big when I stop hearing about how companies are "Too big to fail.
"  Or when they aren't big enough to put serious economic pressure on other people/businesses.
Or when they aren't big enough to be able to legally harass people despite having a flimsy case.
Or when common people are able to routinely exact damages from them.Until then, I'm perfectly happy with society telling companies that they are too big and need to limit their scope.
Large businesses have disproportionate power over me.
Even more so if there are only a few options.
I don't like being coerced, whether its by private companies or governments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567911</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust punishes success</title>
	<author>malchus842</author>
	<datestamp>1246551840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Greenspan is pretty damned smart - but he isn't quite as smart as he thinks he is.</p></div><p>Isn't that pretty much the problem with ALL elected and appointed political figures?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Greenspan is pretty damned smart - but he is n't quite as smart as he thinks he is.Is n't that pretty much the problem with ALL elected and appointed political figures ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greenspan is pretty damned smart - but he isn't quite as smart as he thinks he is.Isn't that pretty much the problem with ALL elected and appointed political figures?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566181</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust punishes success</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246538340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Greenspan is also an objectivist, which makes him wrong about everything.</p><p>Objectivists are literally children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Greenspan is also an objectivist , which makes him wrong about everything.Objectivists are literally children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greenspan is also an objectivist, which makes him wrong about everything.Objectivists are literally children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567083</id>
	<title>Re:Money talks.</title>
	<author>Your.Master</author>
	<datestamp>1246544340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.campaignmoney.com/microsoft.asp" title="campaignmoney.com">http://www.campaignmoney.com/microsoft.asp</a> [campaignmoney.com]<br><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000115" title="opensecrets.org">http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000115</a> [opensecrets.org]<br><a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/print.asp?entryID=136352" title="seattlepi.com">http://blog.seattlepi.com/print.asp?entryID=136352</a> [seattlepi.com] (this one only shows employee contributions, but it compares )</p><p>Microsoft contributes more to the Democrats than they do to the Republicans.  Last year, it was nearly 3:1.  OpenSecrets does show there was a time when Microsoft donated more to the Republicans, but there was never a time when Microsoft was both a top Republican contributor and gave very little money to the Democrats.</p><p>When I see this argument, I presume the mindset that produces it must be something along the lines of:</p><p>A.  Microsoft is evil<br>B.  Republicans are evil<br>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_<br>C.  Therefore, Microsoft is Republican</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.campaignmoney.com/microsoft.asp [ campaignmoney.com ] http : //www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php ? id = d000000115 [ opensecrets.org ] http : //blog.seattlepi.com/print.asp ? entryID = 136352 [ seattlepi.com ] ( this one only shows employee contributions , but it compares ) Microsoft contributes more to the Democrats than they do to the Republicans .
Last year , it was nearly 3 : 1 .
OpenSecrets does show there was a time when Microsoft donated more to the Republicans , but there was never a time when Microsoft was both a top Republican contributor and gave very little money to the Democrats.When I see this argument , I presume the mindset that produces it must be something along the lines of : A. Microsoft is evilB .
Republicans are evil \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _C .
Therefore , Microsoft is Republican</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.campaignmoney.com/microsoft.asp [campaignmoney.com]http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000115 [opensecrets.org]http://blog.seattlepi.com/print.asp?entryID=136352 [seattlepi.com] (this one only shows employee contributions, but it compares )Microsoft contributes more to the Democrats than they do to the Republicans.
Last year, it was nearly 3:1.
OpenSecrets does show there was a time when Microsoft donated more to the Republicans, but there was never a time when Microsoft was both a top Republican contributor and gave very little money to the Democrats.When I see this argument, I presume the mindset that produces it must be something along the lines of:A.  Microsoft is evilB.
Republicans are evil\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_C.
Therefore, Microsoft is Republican</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570949</id>
	<title>Re:So much for "do no evil"</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1246631580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Recording during a board meeting at Google:
<br> <br>
"So, what are we going to do today, Brin?"
<br> <br>
"Same thing we always do, Larry. Try and take over the world!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recording during a board meeting at Google : " So , what are we going to do today , Brin ?
" " Same thing we always do , Larry .
Try and take over the world !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recording during a board meeting at Google:
 
"So, what are we going to do today, Brin?
"
 
"Same thing we always do, Larry.
Try and take over the world!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565617</id>
	<title>Slashdot users are fucking bastards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246535160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Admit linux will never be on the desktop so uninstall it and stop watching anime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Admit linux will never be on the desktop so uninstall it and stop watching anime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Admit linux will never be on the desktop so uninstall it and stop watching anime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28571627</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust punishes success</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1246635900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know this is not about Google's search engine being anti-trust. It is about their deal/settlement on scanning books that are still under copyright but the author's of which they are unable to contact (also known as "orphan works"). I believe that this is a valid investigation. This deal allows Google to acquire control over the distribution of too much of our culture.<br>
As others have pointed out, the correct solution to this issue is copyright reform. The current term of copyright is much too long. There is some disagreement as to how long copyright should be, but there are very few posters on slashdot who disagree with the premise that current copyright applies for too long after a work is produced.<br>
May I suggest that we all get behind some idea such as the life of the author or 25 years from date of publication, whichever is longer. I think that is too long, but it is better than the current law and if people who want it shorter would get behind this it would be a move in the right direction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know this is not about Google 's search engine being anti-trust .
It is about their deal/settlement on scanning books that are still under copyright but the author 's of which they are unable to contact ( also known as " orphan works " ) .
I believe that this is a valid investigation .
This deal allows Google to acquire control over the distribution of too much of our culture .
As others have pointed out , the correct solution to this issue is copyright reform .
The current term of copyright is much too long .
There is some disagreement as to how long copyright should be , but there are very few posters on slashdot who disagree with the premise that current copyright applies for too long after a work is produced .
May I suggest that we all get behind some idea such as the life of the author or 25 years from date of publication , whichever is longer .
I think that is too long , but it is better than the current law and if people who want it shorter would get behind this it would be a move in the right direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know this is not about Google's search engine being anti-trust.
It is about their deal/settlement on scanning books that are still under copyright but the author's of which they are unable to contact (also known as "orphan works").
I believe that this is a valid investigation.
This deal allows Google to acquire control over the distribution of too much of our culture.
As others have pointed out, the correct solution to this issue is copyright reform.
The current term of copyright is much too long.
There is some disagreement as to how long copyright should be, but there are very few posters on slashdot who disagree with the premise that current copyright applies for too long after a work is produced.
May I suggest that we all get behind some idea such as the life of the author or 25 years from date of publication, whichever is longer.
I think that is too long, but it is better than the current law and if people who want it shorter would get behind this it would be a move in the right direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565685</id>
	<title>So much for "do no evil"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246535520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in b4 a million slashtar comments denying that google is just as bad (in some ways worse) as every other corporate entity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in b4 a million slashtar comments denying that google is just as bad ( in some ways worse ) as every other corporate entity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in b4 a million slashtar comments denying that google is just as bad (in some ways worse) as every other corporate entity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565847</id>
	<title>Need Some info..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246536480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone please post information that relates to what Google is actually doing in the first place?  I'm sure I could google it, but it would be nice to see people making posts on slashdot where the subject at hand is sufficiently described or referenced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please post information that relates to what Google is actually doing in the first place ?
I 'm sure I could google it , but it would be nice to see people making posts on slashdot where the subject at hand is sufficiently described or referenced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please post information that relates to what Google is actually doing in the first place?
I'm sure I could google it, but it would be nice to see people making posts on slashdot where the subject at hand is sufficiently described or referenced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565859</id>
	<title>Sorry I dropped my pitchfork</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246536540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First let me say, don't ever trust the government...but when you have a very large company and a deal that is being called questionable by some. Isn't this what the DOJ is supposed to do, investigate and see if there is any merit to the complaints?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First let me say , do n't ever trust the government...but when you have a very large company and a deal that is being called questionable by some .
Is n't this what the DOJ is supposed to do , investigate and see if there is any merit to the complaints ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First let me say, don't ever trust the government...but when you have a very large company and a deal that is being called questionable by some.
Isn't this what the DOJ is supposed to do, investigate and see if there is any merit to the complaints?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565981</id>
	<title>Re:So much for "do no evil"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246537140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the DOJ is investigating because Google has a monopoly on not doing evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the DOJ is investigating because Google has a monopoly on not doing evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the DOJ is investigating because Google has a monopoly on not doing evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566117</id>
	<title>Re:Why didnt they investigate microsoft properly</title>
	<author>dhaines</author>
	<datestamp>1246538040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lobbyists, lobbyists, lobbyists, lobbyists, lobbyists!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lobbyists , lobbyists , lobbyists , lobbyists , lobbyists !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lobbyists, lobbyists, lobbyists, lobbyists, lobbyists!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567197</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, some hope</title>
	<author>chrismcb</author>
	<datestamp>1246545120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah maybe if we got rid of the laws against theft, we would have no need to throw thieves in jail.
Every could just take anything they wanted, without have to worry about some absentee owner coming after them?

Maybe if ownership of something was an opt-in system. Perhaps the law is, if you want to keep it, lock it up. Otherwise it is fair game?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah maybe if we got rid of the laws against theft , we would have no need to throw thieves in jail .
Every could just take anything they wanted , without have to worry about some absentee owner coming after them ?
Maybe if ownership of something was an opt-in system .
Perhaps the law is , if you want to keep it , lock it up .
Otherwise it is fair game ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah maybe if we got rid of the laws against theft, we would have no need to throw thieves in jail.
Every could just take anything they wanted, without have to worry about some absentee owner coming after them?
Maybe if ownership of something was an opt-in system.
Perhaps the law is, if you want to keep it, lock it up.
Otherwise it is fair game?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565907</id>
	<title>Why didnt they investigate microsoft properly</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1246536780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>back at the time ? in the last 8 years, microsoft got major fines from regulators and antitrust institutions around the world for anticompetitive practices, including European Union. yet, doj doesnt do any serious shit about microsoft. what gives ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>back at the time ?
in the last 8 years , microsoft got major fines from regulators and antitrust institutions around the world for anticompetitive practices , including European Union .
yet , doj doesnt do any serious shit about microsoft .
what gives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>back at the time ?
in the last 8 years, microsoft got major fines from regulators and antitrust institutions around the world for anticompetitive practices, including European Union.
yet, doj doesnt do any serious shit about microsoft.
what gives ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566189</id>
	<title>Re:Tsarkon Reports THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246538340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Off topic but extremely interesting... but why did your post get cut off?  Please post the rest for me.</p><p>Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Off topic but extremely interesting... but why did your post get cut off ?
Please post the rest for me.Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Off topic but extremely interesting... but why did your post get cut off?
Please post the rest for me.Thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568037</id>
	<title>Here's the Google Spin</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1246552920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/" title="google.com">http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/</a> [google.com]</p><p>I look forward to "not available in your country".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/ [ google.com ] I look forward to " not available in your country " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/ [google.com]I look forward to "not available in your country".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566667</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-trust punishes success</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246541100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Greenspan is pretty damned smart - but he isn't quite as smart as he thinks he is.</p><p>As already has been noted in this thread, any company that grows so large that it's failure threatens the economic well being of the nation, something is SERIOUSLY wrong.  Getting away from Wall Street, GM and Chrysler should never have made all the "acquisitions" they have made in the last 4 or maybe even 5 decades.  The economic well being of this nation certainly didn't benefit from it.</p><p>That said - DOJ may very well decide that Google is a monopoly, and impose sanctions.  But, if they do, they had most certainly better go after Microsoft again.  On a scale of 1 to 10, if Google ranks 6 as a monopoly, MS is 10 for certain.  MS has spent two decades crafting locks on the market that no other business enjoys.</p><p>Yeah, let's go after all the multi-billion dollar corporations, break them up, and put enterprise into the hands of small business, enterpreneurs, and small investors.  That is, after all, what built America to start with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Greenspan is pretty damned smart - but he is n't quite as smart as he thinks he is.As already has been noted in this thread , any company that grows so large that it 's failure threatens the economic well being of the nation , something is SERIOUSLY wrong .
Getting away from Wall Street , GM and Chrysler should never have made all the " acquisitions " they have made in the last 4 or maybe even 5 decades .
The economic well being of this nation certainly did n't benefit from it.That said - DOJ may very well decide that Google is a monopoly , and impose sanctions .
But , if they do , they had most certainly better go after Microsoft again .
On a scale of 1 to 10 , if Google ranks 6 as a monopoly , MS is 10 for certain .
MS has spent two decades crafting locks on the market that no other business enjoys.Yeah , let 's go after all the multi-billion dollar corporations , break them up , and put enterprise into the hands of small business , enterpreneurs , and small investors .
That is , after all , what built America to start with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greenspan is pretty damned smart - but he isn't quite as smart as he thinks he is.As already has been noted in this thread, any company that grows so large that it's failure threatens the economic well being of the nation, something is SERIOUSLY wrong.
Getting away from Wall Street, GM and Chrysler should never have made all the "acquisitions" they have made in the last 4 or maybe even 5 decades.
The economic well being of this nation certainly didn't benefit from it.That said - DOJ may very well decide that Google is a monopoly, and impose sanctions.
But, if they do, they had most certainly better go after Microsoft again.
On a scale of 1 to 10, if Google ranks 6 as a monopoly, MS is 10 for certain.
MS has spent two decades crafting locks on the market that no other business enjoys.Yeah, let's go after all the multi-billion dollar corporations, break them up, and put enterprise into the hands of small business, enterpreneurs, and small investors.
That is, after all, what built America to start with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565709</id>
	<title>I'm ok with this, as long as.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246535640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm ok with this, as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm ok with this , as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm ok with this, as long as they investigate the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28569829</id>
	<title>Re:So much for "do no evil"</title>
	<author>gripusa</author>
	<datestamp>1246619220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>since when you start believing in it, Google is in my top of the list for "evils"</htmltext>
<tokenext>since when you start believing in it , Google is in my top of the list for " evils "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since when you start believing in it, Google is in my top of the list for "evils"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568983</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, some hope</title>
	<author>NathanBullock</author>
	<datestamp>1246564680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not sure that I understand what you mean by wanting copyright to be an "opt-in system". I like the fact that I know that whatever I put to paper is automatically copyrighted. This means that by default my random spewings in a private journal (for example) are protected by copyright and no-one can republish them if they happen to get a hold of them by chance. This is also the case for an online web site that I create as well or some piece of code that I write. Do you really think everyone should have to constantly opt-in for copyrights to everything they ever put to paper?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure that I understand what you mean by wanting copyright to be an " opt-in system " .
I like the fact that I know that whatever I put to paper is automatically copyrighted .
This means that by default my random spewings in a private journal ( for example ) are protected by copyright and no-one can republish them if they happen to get a hold of them by chance .
This is also the case for an online web site that I create as well or some piece of code that I write .
Do you really think everyone should have to constantly opt-in for copyrights to everything they ever put to paper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure that I understand what you mean by wanting copyright to be an "opt-in system".
I like the fact that I know that whatever I put to paper is automatically copyrighted.
This means that by default my random spewings in a private journal (for example) are protected by copyright and no-one can republish them if they happen to get a hold of them by chance.
This is also the case for an online web site that I create as well or some piece of code that I write.
Do you really think everyone should have to constantly opt-in for copyrights to everything they ever put to paper?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566493</id>
	<title>Re:Need Some info..</title>
	<author>roguetrick</author>
	<datestamp>1246540140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its under related stories, directly below the summary.  Learn to use Slashdot damn it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its under related stories , directly below the summary .
Learn to use Slashdot damn it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its under related stories, directly below the summary.
Learn to use Slashdot damn it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799</id>
	<title>Anti-trust punishes success</title>
	<author>duncan bayne</author>
	<datestamp>1246536120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another case of punishing business for success.  Alan Greenspan had it right back in 1966 when he wrote <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20071011073433/http://polyconomics.com/searchbase/06-12-98.html" title="archive.org">this memo on anti-trust legislation</a> [archive.org]:</p><blockquote><div><p>...<br>The world of antitrust is reminiscent of Alice's Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn't, simultaneously. It is a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet "too much" competition is condemned as "cutthroat." It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as "enlightened" when initiated by the government. It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge's verdict -- after the fact.<br>...</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another case of punishing business for success .
Alan Greenspan had it right back in 1966 when he wrote this memo on anti-trust legislation [ archive.org ] : ...The world of antitrust is reminiscent of Alice 's Wonderland : everything seemingly is , yet apparently is n't , simultaneously .
It is a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle , yet " too much " competition is condemned as " cutthroat .
" It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen , yet praised as " enlightened " when initiated by the government .
It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge 's verdict -- after the fact... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another case of punishing business for success.
Alan Greenspan had it right back in 1966 when he wrote this memo on anti-trust legislation [archive.org]:...The world of antitrust is reminiscent of Alice's Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn't, simultaneously.
It is a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet "too much" competition is condemned as "cutthroat.
" It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as "enlightened" when initiated by the government.
It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge's verdict -- after the fact....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567237</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, some hope</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1246545360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about armed robbery?<br><br>What about lock picking?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about armed robbery ? What about lock picking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about armed robbery?What about lock picking?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565681</id>
	<title>Finally, some hope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246535460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement, which critics claim would grant Google (GOOG) a monopoly on orphaned works-copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder.</p></div><p>Heh, really?  Maybe if there was some copyright reform no deal would be necessary.  Maybe if copyright was an opt-in system, publishers could publish out of print books without having to worry about being sued by an absentee copyright holder.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement , which critics claim would grant Google ( GOOG ) a monopoly on orphaned works-copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder.Heh , really ?
Maybe if there was some copyright reform no deal would be necessary .
Maybe if copyright was an opt-in system , publishers could publish out of print books without having to worry about being sued by an absentee copyright holder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement, which critics claim would grant Google (GOOG) a monopoly on orphaned works-copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder.Heh, really?
Maybe if there was some copyright reform no deal would be necessary.
Maybe if copyright was an opt-in system, publishers could publish out of print books without having to worry about being sued by an absentee copyright holder.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565819</id>
	<title>Re:Serves you right!</title>
	<author>networkBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1246536300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes.<br>sounds just like the EU and Intel:<br>"No company should have over a 50\% market share for any reason"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes.sounds just like the EU and Intel : " No company should have over a 50 \ % market share for any reason "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes.sounds just like the EU and Intel:"No company should have over a 50\% market share for any reason"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570017</id>
	<title>Quoting Greenspan about regulation....</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1246622400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is like quoting</p><p>- Steve Ballmer about Open Source.</p><p>- Hitler about racial harmony.</p><p>- GW Bush about English Grammar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is like quoting- Steve Ballmer about Open Source.- Hitler about racial harmony.- GW Bush about English Grammar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is like quoting- Steve Ballmer about Open Source.- Hitler about racial harmony.- GW Bush about English Grammar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565581</id>
	<title>Tsarkon Reports THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHINE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246534920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tsarkon Reports THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHINE - By MATT TAIBBI - Rolling Stone (Current Issue, July (9-23) 2009) - and two other articles by Matt Taibbi.</p><p>"It's a gangster state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay"</p><p>THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHINE</p><p>From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it again</p><p>The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.</p><p>By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup - which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There's John Thain, the rear end in a top hat chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibillion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company. And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in golden parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing. There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman - not to mention<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>But then, any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain - an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.</p><p>The bank's unprecedented reach and power have enabled it to turn all of America into a giant pump-and-dump scam, manipulating whole economic sectors for years at a time, moving the dice game as this or that market collapses, and all the time gorging itself on the unseen costs that are breaking families everywhere - high gas prices, rising consumer-credit rates, half-eaten pension funds, mass layoffs, future taxes to pay off bailouts. All that money that you're losing, it's going somewhere, and in both a literal and a figurative sense, Goldman Sachs is where it's going: The bank is a huge, highly sophisticated engine for converting the useful, deployed wealth of society into the least useful, most wasteful and insoluble substance on Earth - pure profit for rich individuals.</p><p>They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tsarkon Reports THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHINE - By MATT TAIBBI - Rolling Stone ( Current Issue , July ( 9-23 ) 2009 ) - and two other articles by Matt Taibbi .
" It 's a gangster state , running on gangster economics , and even prices ca n't be trusted anymore ; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay " THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHINEFrom tech stocks to high gas prices , Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they 're about to do it againThe first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it 's everywhere .
The world 's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity , relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money .
In fact , the history of the recent financial crisis , which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire , reads like a Who 's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.By now , most of us know the major players .
As George Bush 's last Treasury secretary , former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout , a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street .
Robert Rubin , Bill Clinton 's former Treasury secretary , spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup - which in turn got a $ 300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson .
There 's John Thain , the rear end in a top hat chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $ 87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding ; a former Goldman banker , Thain enjoyed a multibillion-dollar handout from Paulson , who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain 's sorry company .
And Robert Steel , the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia , scored himself and his fellow executives $ 225 million in golden parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing .
There 's Joshua Bolten , Bush 's chief of staff during the bailout , and Mark Patterson , the current Treasury chief of staff , who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago , and Ed Liddy , the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG , which forked over $ 13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board .
The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums , as is the head of the World Bank , the head of the New York Stock Exchange , the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - which , incidentally , is now in charge of overseeing Goldman - not to mention ...But then , any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise , like trying to make a list of everything .
What you need to know is the big picture : If America is circling the drain , Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain - an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism , which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections , organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.The bank 's unprecedented reach and power have enabled it to turn all of America into a giant pump-and-dump scam , manipulating whole economic sectors for years at a time , moving the dice game as this or that market collapses , and all the time gorging itself on the unseen costs that are breaking families everywhere - high gas prices , rising consumer-credit rates , half-eaten pension funds , mass layoffs , future taxes to pay off bailouts .
All that money that you 're losing , it 's going somewhere , and in both a literal and a figurative sense , Goldman Sachs is where it 's going : The bank is a huge , highly sophisticated engine for converting the useful , deployed wealth of society into the least useful , most wasteful and insoluble substance on Earth - pure profit for rich individuals.They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again .
The formula is relatively simple : Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tsarkon Reports THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHINE - By MATT TAIBBI - Rolling Stone (Current Issue, July (9-23) 2009) - and two other articles by Matt Taibbi.
"It's a gangster state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay"THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHINEFrom tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it againThe first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere.
The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.
In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.By now, most of us know the major players.
As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street.
Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup - which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson.
There's John Thain, the rear end in a top hat chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibillion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company.
And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in golden parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing.
There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board.
The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman - not to mention ...But then, any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything.
What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain - an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.The bank's unprecedented reach and power have enabled it to turn all of America into a giant pump-and-dump scam, manipulating whole economic sectors for years at a time, moving the dice game as this or that market collapses, and all the time gorging itself on the unseen costs that are breaking families everywhere - high gas prices, rising consumer-credit rates, half-eaten pension funds, mass layoffs, future taxes to pay off bailouts.
All that money that you're losing, it's going somewhere, and in both a literal and a figurative sense, Goldman Sachs is where it's going: The bank is a huge, highly sophisticated engine for converting the useful, deployed wealth of society into the least useful, most wasteful and insoluble substance on Earth - pure profit for rich individuals.They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again.
The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bu</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568281</id>
	<title>Re:Serves you right!</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1246555020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Behind every great fortune there is a CRIME." --Honore de Balzac
<br>
SEC must REGULATE the Market Capitalization of all Listed Companies to TWICE their Quarterly Revenue.
This will
<ul>
<li>* Will open markets for entrepreneurs resulting in millions of new jobs in start-ups.</li>
<li>* Prevent Ponzi type scams in Corporate Management and Stock Markets</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Behind every great fortune there is a CRIME .
" --Honore de Balzac SEC must REGULATE the Market Capitalization of all Listed Companies to TWICE their Quarterly Revenue .
This will * Will open markets for entrepreneurs resulting in millions of new jobs in start-ups .
* Prevent Ponzi type scams in Corporate Management and Stock Markets</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Behind every great fortune there is a CRIME.
" --Honore de Balzac

SEC must REGULATE the Market Capitalization of all Listed Companies to TWICE their Quarterly Revenue.
This will

* Will open markets for entrepreneurs resulting in millions of new jobs in start-ups.
* Prevent Ponzi type scams in Corporate Management and Stock Markets</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567423</id>
	<title>Re:Finally, some hope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246546920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the "monopoly" in question is called "copyright". If companies are worried about the monopoly of orphan works, the answer is easy. Orphan works should fall into the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the " monopoly " in question is called " copyright " .
If companies are worried about the monopoly of orphan works , the answer is easy .
Orphan works should fall into the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the "monopoly" in question is called "copyright".
If companies are worried about the monopoly of orphan works, the answer is easy.
Orphan works should fall into the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565681</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28571627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28574873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28569829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_2156227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2156227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567197
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2156227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28569829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2156227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2156227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2156227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28574873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2156227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2156227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2156227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28568097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_2156227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28565799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28571627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567723
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28567911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28570017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_2156227.28566467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
