<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_26_1215210</id>
	<title>Microsoft Freeloading In Washington State Courts</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256564160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>reifman writes <i>"For tax purposes, Microsoft reports that it's earned its estimated $143 billion in software licensing revenue <a href="//news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/22/225233&amp;tid=11">in Nevada</a>, where there is no licensing tax, as we discussed a few weeks ago. However, for legal purposes, <a href="http://blog.reifman.org/2009/10/microsofts-washington-tax-dodge-nears-1-billion.html">Microsoft relies on Washington law and its underfunded courts to defend its contracts</a> as it did in <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/21624322/Microsoft-Licensing-GP-Lawsuit-Summons-Complaint">Microsoft Licensing GP vs. TSR Silicon</a>. Application of common legal doctrines such as nexus, the step doctrine, and alter ego theory may lead to findings that Microsoft owes the state more than $1 billion in taxes, interest, and penalties."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>reifman writes " For tax purposes , Microsoft reports that it 's earned its estimated $ 143 billion in software licensing revenue in Nevada , where there is no licensing tax , as we discussed a few weeks ago .
However , for legal purposes , Microsoft relies on Washington law and its underfunded courts to defend its contracts as it did in Microsoft Licensing GP vs. TSR Silicon .
Application of common legal doctrines such as nexus , the step doctrine , and alter ego theory may lead to findings that Microsoft owes the state more than $ 1 billion in taxes , interest , and penalties .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reifman writes "For tax purposes, Microsoft reports that it's earned its estimated $143 billion in software licensing revenue in Nevada, where there is no licensing tax, as we discussed a few weeks ago.
However, for legal purposes, Microsoft relies on Washington law and its underfunded courts to defend its contracts as it did in Microsoft Licensing GP vs. TSR Silicon.
Application of common legal doctrines such as nexus, the step doctrine, and alter ego theory may lead to findings that Microsoft owes the state more than $1 billion in taxes, interest, and penalties.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872507</id>
	<title>Legal doctrines?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1256572200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Application of common legal doctrines such as nexus, the step doctrine, and alter ego theory </i></p><p>Those don't sound like legal doctrines.  They sound like sci-fi movie titles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Application of common legal doctrines such as nexus , the step doctrine , and alter ego theory Those do n't sound like legal doctrines .
They sound like sci-fi movie titles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Application of common legal doctrines such as nexus, the step doctrine, and alter ego theory Those don't sound like legal doctrines.
They sound like sci-fi movie titles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875517</id>
	<title>Washington State</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256586540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Washington State is a college in Pullman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Washington State is a college in Pullman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Washington State is a college in Pullman.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873573</id>
	<title>Re:You've gotta love this entitlement mentality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256577600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes. This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.</p></div><p>I would also point out that you do not really pay taxes. This is just another expense that gets passed to your employer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes .
This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.I would also point out that you do not really pay taxes .
This is just another expense that gets passed to your employer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes.
This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.I would also point out that you do not really pay taxes.
This is just another expense that gets passed to your employer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873105</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1256575380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...but they seem to want the <b>best of both worlds</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Never has that little Bill Gates/Locutus graphic been more appropriate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but they seem to want the best of both worlds Never has that little Bill Gates/Locutus graphic been more appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but they seem to want the best of both worlds Never has that little Bill Gates/Locutus graphic been more appropriate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481</id>
	<title>uh...no</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1256572080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Application of common legal doctrines such as nexus, the step doctrine, and alter ego theory may lead to findings that Microsoft owes the state more than $1 billion in taxes, interest, and penalties.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Microsoft doesn't owe Washington jack crap, because what's it's doing with this Nevada thing is entirely legal.  If Washington wants a piece of the pie then they need to change their state law to prohibit this practice by entities incorporated in Washington.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Application of common legal doctrines such as nexus , the step doctrine , and alter ego theory may lead to findings that Microsoft owes the state more than $ 1 billion in taxes , interest , and penalties .
Microsoft does n't owe Washington jack crap , because what 's it 's doing with this Nevada thing is entirely legal .
If Washington wants a piece of the pie then they need to change their state law to prohibit this practice by entities incorporated in Washington .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Application of common legal doctrines such as nexus, the step doctrine, and alter ego theory may lead to findings that Microsoft owes the state more than $1 billion in taxes, interest, and penalties.
Microsoft doesn't owe Washington jack crap, because what's it's doing with this Nevada thing is entirely legal.
If Washington wants a piece of the pie then they need to change their state law to prohibit this practice by entities incorporated in Washington.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874379</id>
	<title>Re:You've gotta love this entitlement mentality</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1256581320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes. This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.</p></div><p>This comes up whenever the discussion turns to corporate taxation. It's incorrect, but tends to be one of those zombie concepts that keeps coming back no matter how incorrect it is.</p><p>The standard microeconomics on taxation on a single market: The tax raises the cost to produce the good. This shifts the supply curve somewhere. A new equilibrium price is formed, which is nearly always somewhere in between the old price and the old price + the tax. That means the cost of the tax is partially paid by the seller (old price + tax - new price) and partially paid by the buyer (new price - old price). In the case of a corporation, the portion of the cost born by the seller is passed along to some degree to the stockholders. The cases where this doesn't happen are when the demand for the good is not affected by price, or in the case of Giffen or Veblen goods where demand increases when prices are increased.</p><p>Incidentally, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax\_incidence" title="wikipedia.org">this</a> [wikipedia.org] explains it far better than what I just said. The diagrams alone explain it rather clearly. All this stuff can be found in any standard introductory economics textbook. There's disagreement over exactly how much gets paid where, but agreement that it isn't all passed along to the consumer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes .
This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.This comes up whenever the discussion turns to corporate taxation .
It 's incorrect , but tends to be one of those zombie concepts that keeps coming back no matter how incorrect it is.The standard microeconomics on taxation on a single market : The tax raises the cost to produce the good .
This shifts the supply curve somewhere .
A new equilibrium price is formed , which is nearly always somewhere in between the old price and the old price + the tax .
That means the cost of the tax is partially paid by the seller ( old price + tax - new price ) and partially paid by the buyer ( new price - old price ) .
In the case of a corporation , the portion of the cost born by the seller is passed along to some degree to the stockholders .
The cases where this does n't happen are when the demand for the good is not affected by price , or in the case of Giffen or Veblen goods where demand increases when prices are increased.Incidentally , this [ wikipedia.org ] explains it far better than what I just said .
The diagrams alone explain it rather clearly .
All this stuff can be found in any standard introductory economics textbook .
There 's disagreement over exactly how much gets paid where , but agreement that it is n't all passed along to the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes.
This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.This comes up whenever the discussion turns to corporate taxation.
It's incorrect, but tends to be one of those zombie concepts that keeps coming back no matter how incorrect it is.The standard microeconomics on taxation on a single market: The tax raises the cost to produce the good.
This shifts the supply curve somewhere.
A new equilibrium price is formed, which is nearly always somewhere in between the old price and the old price + the tax.
That means the cost of the tax is partially paid by the seller (old price + tax - new price) and partially paid by the buyer (new price - old price).
In the case of a corporation, the portion of the cost born by the seller is passed along to some degree to the stockholders.
The cases where this doesn't happen are when the demand for the good is not affected by price, or in the case of Giffen or Veblen goods where demand increases when prices are increased.Incidentally, this [wikipedia.org] explains it far better than what I just said.
The diagrams alone explain it rather clearly.
All this stuff can be found in any standard introductory economics textbook.
There's disagreement over exactly how much gets paid where, but agreement that it isn't all passed along to the consumer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874903</id>
	<title>Re:uh...no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256583660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... while the dodging of taxes might be legit, it seems that they are doing something fishy with regards to using Washington state laws to protect the licensing in courts. How exactly does that work? If they want to dodge the taxes then shouldn't they be using Nevada laws to protect their licenses since that is where they claim the licenses come from and not Washington state laws? It seems a better route for Washington would be to say, "sorry buddy, you aren't protected by our laws unless you start paying taxes like you are actually in our state."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... while the dodging of taxes might be legit , it seems that they are doing something fishy with regards to using Washington state laws to protect the licensing in courts .
How exactly does that work ?
If they want to dodge the taxes then should n't they be using Nevada laws to protect their licenses since that is where they claim the licenses come from and not Washington state laws ?
It seems a better route for Washington would be to say , " sorry buddy , you are n't protected by our laws unless you start paying taxes like you are actually in our state .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... while the dodging of taxes might be legit, it seems that they are doing something fishy with regards to using Washington state laws to protect the licensing in courts.
How exactly does that work?
If they want to dodge the taxes then shouldn't they be using Nevada laws to protect their licenses since that is where they claim the licenses come from and not Washington state laws?
It seems a better route for Washington would be to say, "sorry buddy, you aren't protected by our laws unless you start paying taxes like you are actually in our state.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>mikelieman</author>
	<datestamp>1256568360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that anyone cares that MSFT booked the revenue in Nevada.</p><p>BUT, That means the Laws of Nevada are dominant, not Washington.  Microsoft needed to make one choice, but they seem to want the best of both worlds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that anyone cares that MSFT booked the revenue in Nevada.BUT , That means the Laws of Nevada are dominant , not Washington .
Microsoft needed to make one choice , but they seem to want the best of both worlds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that anyone cares that MSFT booked the revenue in Nevada.BUT, That means the Laws of Nevada are dominant, not Washington.
Microsoft needed to make one choice, but they seem to want the best of both worlds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872053</id>
	<title>Corporations don't pay taxes, not news</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1256570220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it was during their anti-monopoly case that it came out they hadn't paid taxes in something like 3 of 4 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it was during their anti-monopoly case that it came out they had n't paid taxes in something like 3 of 4 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it was during their anti-monopoly case that it came out they hadn't paid taxes in something like 3 of 4 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873383</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256576460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Byzantine? You have seen nothing! Go look at Germany, France, or the like. 19\% tax on everything you buy is only the beginning. According to my uncle, who runs a 50-person business, 80\% of what the client pays, ends up as taxes. 80 freakin percent! (Don't forget to add all the layers of taxation.)</p><p>Of course you get healthcare... kinda... and all the other government stuff... up to someone coming to your house to help you do your work... kinda... the service you get is mostly lousy.</p><p>But hey, at least your constitution openly states, that when your government becomes unbearable, you can shoot them. If I were a General, I would have started at the beginning of the second term of Bush. And by now, there would be two countries. Mine (includes New York, LA, etc), and the bible country. Of course, as a bible country can't get anything done, because they would just pray for bombs, and kill all engineers for wizardry, soon there would only be one country again. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Byzantine ?
You have seen nothing !
Go look at Germany , France , or the like .
19 \ % tax on everything you buy is only the beginning .
According to my uncle , who runs a 50-person business , 80 \ % of what the client pays , ends up as taxes .
80 freakin percent !
( Do n't forget to add all the layers of taxation .
) Of course you get healthcare... kinda... and all the other government stuff... up to someone coming to your house to help you do your work... kinda... the service you get is mostly lousy.But hey , at least your constitution openly states , that when your government becomes unbearable , you can shoot them .
If I were a General , I would have started at the beginning of the second term of Bush .
And by now , there would be two countries .
Mine ( includes New York , LA , etc ) , and the bible country .
Of course , as a bible country ca n't get anything done , because they would just pray for bombs , and kill all engineers for wizardry , soon there would only be one country again .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Byzantine?
You have seen nothing!
Go look at Germany, France, or the like.
19\% tax on everything you buy is only the beginning.
According to my uncle, who runs a 50-person business, 80\% of what the client pays, ends up as taxes.
80 freakin percent!
(Don't forget to add all the layers of taxation.
)Of course you get healthcare... kinda... and all the other government stuff... up to someone coming to your house to help you do your work... kinda... the service you get is mostly lousy.But hey, at least your constitution openly states, that when your government becomes unbearable, you can shoot them.
If I were a General, I would have started at the beginning of the second term of Bush.
And by now, there would be two countries.
Mine (includes New York, LA, etc), and the bible country.
Of course, as a bible country can't get anything done, because they would just pray for bombs, and kill all engineers for wizardry, soon there would only be one country again.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872749</id>
	<title>Re:They pay some</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256573460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure all the small business owners in Washington feel super happy about it every time they pay the taxes MS get's a free pass on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure all the small business owners in Washington feel super happy about it every time they pay the taxes MS get 's a free pass on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure all the small business owners in Washington feel super happy about it every time they pay the taxes MS get's a free pass on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874135</id>
	<title>Re:Buy your MS licenses in China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256580300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its the golden Rule.
<br> <br>
He who has the gold rules.
<br> <br>
So If we all try another OS, this open source here,
a Mac does not count.  Then there will be less Gold.
In the wrong hands.
<br> <br>
Alas the gold  will last a while, but the sooner we start
the sooner the world will  change.
<br> <br>
I will not run Windows, even though it makes me an outcast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its the golden Rule .
He who has the gold rules .
So If we all try another OS , this open source here , a Mac does not count .
Then there will be less Gold .
In the wrong hands .
Alas the gold will last a while , but the sooner we start the sooner the world will change .
I will not run Windows , even though it makes me an outcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its the golden Rule.
He who has the gold rules.
So If we all try another OS, this open source here,
a Mac does not count.
Then there will be less Gold.
In the wrong hands.
Alas the gold  will last a while, but the sooner we start
the sooner the world will  change.
I will not run Windows, even though it makes me an outcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872215</id>
	<title>What's their HQ address?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256570940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it Nevada? No? Though luck. Pay up suckers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it Nevada ?
No ? Though luck .
Pay up suckers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it Nevada?
No? Though luck.
Pay up suckers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673</id>
	<title>What a Troll!</title>
	<author>Syncerus</author>
	<datestamp>1256568120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you go out of your way to find the way in which you can legally give the government the most possible tax revenue?</p><p>It is absurd to suggest that any public company not do the maximum they can to minimize their tax liability. You obviously have an ax to grind with MS, and that's fine, but digging up this kind of garbage is ridiculous. The same statements that you have made about MS can probably be made about 95\% of the Fortune 500.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you go out of your way to find the way in which you can legally give the government the most possible tax revenue ? It is absurd to suggest that any public company not do the maximum they can to minimize their tax liability .
You obviously have an ax to grind with MS , and that 's fine , but digging up this kind of garbage is ridiculous .
The same statements that you have made about MS can probably be made about 95 \ % of the Fortune 500 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you go out of your way to find the way in which you can legally give the government the most possible tax revenue?It is absurd to suggest that any public company not do the maximum they can to minimize their tax liability.
You obviously have an ax to grind with MS, and that's fine, but digging up this kind of garbage is ridiculous.
The same statements that you have made about MS can probably be made about 95\% of the Fortune 500.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872801</id>
	<title>Re:You've gotta love this entitlement mentality</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1256573820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is the one who feels entitled.  They are HQd in Washington State.  They feel entitled to declaring another state as their "real HQ" and that "everything we sell is sold from this tiny one room office in Nevada!" This is akin to getting a PO box in Washington State to avoid paying income tax in your home state.  "No, this is my secondary residence, my primary is a PO box in Seattle, so I'm an out of state worker!"  On top of that, they feel entitled to say "Even though we have legally declared that we are NOT a Washington based company, we deserve free access to the Washington courts, to settle a dispute over a legal contract bewteen a Nevada based company and a New York based company."  Not the correct venue.  The judge should throw their asses out and hand them a fine for wasting his time.  Why on EARTH should a WASHINGTON judge settle a dispute between two out of state corporations?  It doesn't involve Washington State at all, except that the Nevada based corporation has a branch office in Washington.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is the one who feels entitled .
They are HQd in Washington State .
They feel entitled to declaring another state as their " real HQ " and that " everything we sell is sold from this tiny one room office in Nevada !
" This is akin to getting a PO box in Washington State to avoid paying income tax in your home state .
" No , this is my secondary residence , my primary is a PO box in Seattle , so I 'm an out of state worker !
" On top of that , they feel entitled to say " Even though we have legally declared that we are NOT a Washington based company , we deserve free access to the Washington courts , to settle a dispute over a legal contract bewteen a Nevada based company and a New York based company .
" Not the correct venue .
The judge should throw their asses out and hand them a fine for wasting his time .
Why on EARTH should a WASHINGTON judge settle a dispute between two out of state corporations ?
It does n't involve Washington State at all , except that the Nevada based corporation has a branch office in Washington .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is the one who feels entitled.
They are HQd in Washington State.
They feel entitled to declaring another state as their "real HQ" and that "everything we sell is sold from this tiny one room office in Nevada!
" This is akin to getting a PO box in Washington State to avoid paying income tax in your home state.
"No, this is my secondary residence, my primary is a PO box in Seattle, so I'm an out of state worker!
"  On top of that, they feel entitled to say "Even though we have legally declared that we are NOT a Washington based company, we deserve free access to the Washington courts, to settle a dispute over a legal contract bewteen a Nevada based company and a New York based company.
"  Not the correct venue.
The judge should throw their asses out and hand them a fine for wasting his time.
Why on EARTH should a WASHINGTON judge settle a dispute between two out of state corporations?
It doesn't involve Washington State at all, except that the Nevada based corporation has a branch office in Washington.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872583</id>
	<title>It's nice to complain, but what about the law..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256572560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel obligated to explain that the tests for personal and subject matter jurisdiction of a court are different than the ones for where a business is "located" for tax purposes or corporate charter purposes.  First off, nearly all US corporations are based in Delaware for numerous reasons - one of them being their well developed corporate law jurisprudence (the Delaware chancellory courts are widely accepted as being among the best in the country).  Second, companies cannot just file lawsuits anywhere they feel like.  They have to get personal jurisdiction of the court over the defendant - say you have a contract dispute with a company in Pennsylvania over a deal you made in Florida, but you live in South Carolina.  If the company you are suing has no place of business in SC and doesn't do substantial business there, you cannot just go to the SC courts and sue them.  You can file a lawsuit in Pennsylvania or (probably - depending on the state long arm statute) Florida.  You may also be able to file suit in another state if the contract says that disputes will be resolved by the courts of X state (depending again on the long arm statute).  Any other state that these 3 (including your home state of South Carolina), and the court will almost certainly grant the company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.</p><p>Microsoft, being a big company with lots of negotiating power, probably had a choice of law provisions put into these contracts putting them into Washington state courts.  Alternatively, these companies that the lawsuits are with could have had their own primary offices in Washington state - meaning that that's where jurisdiction can attach.  They can't just willy-nilly ask for a change of venue to Nevada just because that's where Microsoft is "based" for tax purposes.  The only way for Microsoft to get into court in Nevada is for them to sue a defendant located in Nevada, a Nevada choice of law provision to be inserted into the contract, or for SOMEONE TO FILE SUIT AGAINST THEM IN NEVADA - presuming that their tax residency there is sufficient under Nevada's long arm statute.</p><p>Oh and if somehow a corporation that is truly not a "citizen" of Washington got hauled into court there by Microsoft, any lawyer would file to have the case removed to federal court, then probably for a transfer of venue to a district court nearer to the dispute or defendant.  This is of course provided that Microsoft and the corporation are completely diverse (no commonalities of state citizenship) and the dollar amount in dispute is over $75,000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel obligated to explain that the tests for personal and subject matter jurisdiction of a court are different than the ones for where a business is " located " for tax purposes or corporate charter purposes .
First off , nearly all US corporations are based in Delaware for numerous reasons - one of them being their well developed corporate law jurisprudence ( the Delaware chancellory courts are widely accepted as being among the best in the country ) .
Second , companies can not just file lawsuits anywhere they feel like .
They have to get personal jurisdiction of the court over the defendant - say you have a contract dispute with a company in Pennsylvania over a deal you made in Florida , but you live in South Carolina .
If the company you are suing has no place of business in SC and does n't do substantial business there , you can not just go to the SC courts and sue them .
You can file a lawsuit in Pennsylvania or ( probably - depending on the state long arm statute ) Florida .
You may also be able to file suit in another state if the contract says that disputes will be resolved by the courts of X state ( depending again on the long arm statute ) .
Any other state that these 3 ( including your home state of South Carolina ) , and the court will almost certainly grant the company 's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.Microsoft , being a big company with lots of negotiating power , probably had a choice of law provisions put into these contracts putting them into Washington state courts .
Alternatively , these companies that the lawsuits are with could have had their own primary offices in Washington state - meaning that that 's where jurisdiction can attach .
They ca n't just willy-nilly ask for a change of venue to Nevada just because that 's where Microsoft is " based " for tax purposes .
The only way for Microsoft to get into court in Nevada is for them to sue a defendant located in Nevada , a Nevada choice of law provision to be inserted into the contract , or for SOMEONE TO FILE SUIT AGAINST THEM IN NEVADA - presuming that their tax residency there is sufficient under Nevada 's long arm statute.Oh and if somehow a corporation that is truly not a " citizen " of Washington got hauled into court there by Microsoft , any lawyer would file to have the case removed to federal court , then probably for a transfer of venue to a district court nearer to the dispute or defendant .
This is of course provided that Microsoft and the corporation are completely diverse ( no commonalities of state citizenship ) and the dollar amount in dispute is over $ 75,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel obligated to explain that the tests for personal and subject matter jurisdiction of a court are different than the ones for where a business is "located" for tax purposes or corporate charter purposes.
First off, nearly all US corporations are based in Delaware for numerous reasons - one of them being their well developed corporate law jurisprudence (the Delaware chancellory courts are widely accepted as being among the best in the country).
Second, companies cannot just file lawsuits anywhere they feel like.
They have to get personal jurisdiction of the court over the defendant - say you have a contract dispute with a company in Pennsylvania over a deal you made in Florida, but you live in South Carolina.
If the company you are suing has no place of business in SC and doesn't do substantial business there, you cannot just go to the SC courts and sue them.
You can file a lawsuit in Pennsylvania or (probably - depending on the state long arm statute) Florida.
You may also be able to file suit in another state if the contract says that disputes will be resolved by the courts of X state (depending again on the long arm statute).
Any other state that these 3 (including your home state of South Carolina), and the court will almost certainly grant the company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.Microsoft, being a big company with lots of negotiating power, probably had a choice of law provisions put into these contracts putting them into Washington state courts.
Alternatively, these companies that the lawsuits are with could have had their own primary offices in Washington state - meaning that that's where jurisdiction can attach.
They can't just willy-nilly ask for a change of venue to Nevada just because that's where Microsoft is "based" for tax purposes.
The only way for Microsoft to get into court in Nevada is for them to sue a defendant located in Nevada, a Nevada choice of law provision to be inserted into the contract, or for SOMEONE TO FILE SUIT AGAINST THEM IN NEVADA - presuming that their tax residency there is sufficient under Nevada's long arm statute.Oh and if somehow a corporation that is truly not a "citizen" of Washington got hauled into court there by Microsoft, any lawyer would file to have the case removed to federal court, then probably for a transfer of venue to a district court nearer to the dispute or defendant.
This is of course provided that Microsoft and the corporation are completely diverse (no commonalities of state citizenship) and the dollar amount in dispute is over $75,000.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841</id>
	<title>Buy your MS licenses in China</title>
	<author>Toe, The</author>
	<datestamp>1256569020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then Microsoft would have no problem with me buying my MS licenses in China and using them in the US, right?</p><p>Yeah, riiiiiight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then Microsoft would have no problem with me buying my MS licenses in China and using them in the US , right ? Yeah , riiiiiight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then Microsoft would have no problem with me buying my MS licenses in China and using them in the US, right?Yeah, riiiiiight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873431</id>
	<title>Re:They pay some</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256576700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Washington state has sales tax in place of income tax in other states. Currently it is 6.5\% state wide, with an added 2.5\% here in King county. So MS, Boeing, Motorola, Adobe, etc. all have sales outlets outside the state.</p></div><p>Ooo, cry me a big damn river.  Back in Michigan, we had a 6\% sales tax and a state income tax.  Man, that extra 3\% sales tax <i>only in King County, apparently,</i> must REALLY sting.  Same with the <i>astonishingly</i> painful extra 0.5\% the rest of the state has, regardless of county.</p><p>Then again, here in Kentucky we have a 6\% sales tax, AND a state income tax, AND a county income tax, AND a city income tax ("fortunately", the latter two don't have forms to fill out).  But man, that <i>three percent extra on sales tax</i> must be what's running you broke.  "Daddy, why are we moving to the poorhouse?" "Because, son, a 12-pack of soda has a tax of around 36 cents on it.  *sigh* If <i>only</i> we lived in a state where that tax would've been <i>24 cents</i>.  We'd be millionaires by now.  Now, start learning how to strain food from garbage, son." "But daddy, those states have income taxes far greater than-" "STFU SON WHY DO YOU SUPPORT TAXES"</p><p>Call the waaaaaambulance, life's so much more expensive up and down the west coast.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Washington state has sales tax in place of income tax in other states .
Currently it is 6.5 \ % state wide , with an added 2.5 \ % here in King county .
So MS , Boeing , Motorola , Adobe , etc .
all have sales outlets outside the state.Ooo , cry me a big damn river .
Back in Michigan , we had a 6 \ % sales tax and a state income tax .
Man , that extra 3 \ % sales tax only in King County , apparently , must REALLY sting .
Same with the astonishingly painful extra 0.5 \ % the rest of the state has , regardless of county.Then again , here in Kentucky we have a 6 \ % sales tax , AND a state income tax , AND a county income tax , AND a city income tax ( " fortunately " , the latter two do n't have forms to fill out ) .
But man , that three percent extra on sales tax must be what 's running you broke .
" Daddy , why are we moving to the poorhouse ?
" " Because , son , a 12-pack of soda has a tax of around 36 cents on it .
* sigh * If only we lived in a state where that tax would 've been 24 cents .
We 'd be millionaires by now .
Now , start learning how to strain food from garbage , son .
" " But daddy , those states have income taxes far greater than- " " STFU SON WHY DO YOU SUPPORT TAXES " Call the waaaaaambulance , life 's so much more expensive up and down the west coast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Washington state has sales tax in place of income tax in other states.
Currently it is 6.5\% state wide, with an added 2.5\% here in King county.
So MS, Boeing, Motorola, Adobe, etc.
all have sales outlets outside the state.Ooo, cry me a big damn river.
Back in Michigan, we had a 6\% sales tax and a state income tax.
Man, that extra 3\% sales tax only in King County, apparently, must REALLY sting.
Same with the astonishingly painful extra 0.5\% the rest of the state has, regardless of county.Then again, here in Kentucky we have a 6\% sales tax, AND a state income tax, AND a county income tax, AND a city income tax ("fortunately", the latter two don't have forms to fill out).
But man, that three percent extra on sales tax must be what's running you broke.
"Daddy, why are we moving to the poorhouse?
" "Because, son, a 12-pack of soda has a tax of around 36 cents on it.
*sigh* If only we lived in a state where that tax would've been 24 cents.
We'd be millionaires by now.
Now, start learning how to strain food from garbage, son.
" "But daddy, those states have income taxes far greater than-" "STFU SON WHY DO YOU SUPPORT TAXES"Call the waaaaaambulance, life's so much more expensive up and down the west coast.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872363</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>HazelMotes</author>
	<datestamp>1256571660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe, but probably not.  I would expect any government (Washington State or otherwise) that started receiving $775M+ in additional tax revenue would *spend* it, not cut taxes for others.

Anyway, isn't there a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion?  I would imagine, given the size of the target, if M$ was evading taxes they would be brought to bear as quickly as the courts would allow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , but probably not .
I would expect any government ( Washington State or otherwise ) that started receiving $ 775M + in additional tax revenue would * spend * it , not cut taxes for others .
Anyway , is n't there a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion ?
I would imagine , given the size of the target , if M $ was evading taxes they would be brought to bear as quickly as the courts would allow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, but probably not.
I would expect any government (Washington State or otherwise) that started receiving $775M+ in additional tax revenue would *spend* it, not cut taxes for others.
Anyway, isn't there a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion?
I would imagine, given the size of the target, if M$ was evading taxes they would be brought to bear as quickly as the courts would allow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873525</id>
	<title>Nothing unique about that</title>
	<author>kbw</author>
	<datestamp>1256577240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think this is news, you may want to look into what's special about Zug (Switzerland).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think this is news , you may want to look into what 's special about Zug ( Switzerland ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think this is news, you may want to look into what's special about Zug (Switzerland).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872407</id>
	<title>It's simple for Washington</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1256571840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>BUT, That means the Laws of Nevada are dominant, not Washington. Microsoft needed to make one choice, but they seem to want the best of both worlds.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Change their accounting and tax laws and this "problem" will go away! On the other hand, one of the downsides of having a federal system with 50 semi-independent states is you have competition. Washington might not like them, but Montana or Idaho might be more than willing to let Microsoft set up shop with nary a peep said ill of their practices.
<br> <br>
Of course, the up side to having that competition is that you have the ability to move to a state that is governed to your liking instead of having to stew in bitter resentment as a one-size-fits-all policy is forced on you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BUT , That means the Laws of Nevada are dominant , not Washington .
Microsoft needed to make one choice , but they seem to want the best of both worlds .
Change their accounting and tax laws and this " problem " will go away !
On the other hand , one of the downsides of having a federal system with 50 semi-independent states is you have competition .
Washington might not like them , but Montana or Idaho might be more than willing to let Microsoft set up shop with nary a peep said ill of their practices .
Of course , the up side to having that competition is that you have the ability to move to a state that is governed to your liking instead of having to stew in bitter resentment as a one-size-fits-all policy is forced on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BUT, That means the Laws of Nevada are dominant, not Washington.
Microsoft needed to make one choice, but they seem to want the best of both worlds.
Change their accounting and tax laws and this "problem" will go away!
On the other hand, one of the downsides of having a federal system with 50 semi-independent states is you have competition.
Washington might not like them, but Montana or Idaho might be more than willing to let Microsoft set up shop with nary a peep said ill of their practices.
Of course, the up side to having that competition is that you have the ability to move to a state that is governed to your liking instead of having to stew in bitter resentment as a one-size-fits-all policy is forced on you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872443</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1256571960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You will never be able to find a tax reduction you can attribute to the government collecting this. That's not how it works, it just means the government is taking more. That doesn't mean I think the government should tolerate tax evasion. It will make MS a little less profitable/competitive, because they either have to absorb the higher tax from their profits or raise their prices/sales.</i></p><p>Seeing as how most government organizations are operating in the red due to the cashpocalypse, the "tax reduction" from collecting this would come in the form of fewer emergency bond measures that we will be saddled with paying back ten years down the road.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You will never be able to find a tax reduction you can attribute to the government collecting this .
That 's not how it works , it just means the government is taking more .
That does n't mean I think the government should tolerate tax evasion .
It will make MS a little less profitable/competitive , because they either have to absorb the higher tax from their profits or raise their prices/sales.Seeing as how most government organizations are operating in the red due to the cashpocalypse , the " tax reduction " from collecting this would come in the form of fewer emergency bond measures that we will be saddled with paying back ten years down the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will never be able to find a tax reduction you can attribute to the government collecting this.
That's not how it works, it just means the government is taking more.
That doesn't mean I think the government should tolerate tax evasion.
It will make MS a little less profitable/competitive, because they either have to absorb the higher tax from their profits or raise their prices/sales.Seeing as how most government organizations are operating in the red due to the cashpocalypse, the "tax reduction" from collecting this would come in the form of fewer emergency bond measures that we will be saddled with paying back ten years down the road.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874693</id>
	<title>Missing the point.</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1256582820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find this conversation and others about state taxes interesting because people rarely bring up the real problem.</p><p>Federal taxes.</p><p>I pay far, far more in Federal taxes than state taxes.  And what do those assholes do with it?  Send it to another state?  Force the states to implement federal laws which the federal govt. has no jurisdiction over by holding back highway money to improve the road system I actually use?  Use it to buy votes from old people and poor people?  Pay assholes $8k to buy a house or $4.5k to buy a car?  Seriously, wtf?</p><p>The Federal govt should be doing things like funding the military, cross-state law enforcement, food and drug safety, diplomacy, etc.. not bullshit vote pandering and wealth redistribution.  I have no control over how the federal govt spends my money, I have 50-200X the control over my local state.</p><p>So quit whining about the big mean evil corporations and look at the real problem here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this conversation and others about state taxes interesting because people rarely bring up the real problem.Federal taxes.I pay far , far more in Federal taxes than state taxes .
And what do those assholes do with it ?
Send it to another state ?
Force the states to implement federal laws which the federal govt .
has no jurisdiction over by holding back highway money to improve the road system I actually use ?
Use it to buy votes from old people and poor people ?
Pay assholes $ 8k to buy a house or $ 4.5k to buy a car ?
Seriously , wtf ? The Federal govt should be doing things like funding the military , cross-state law enforcement , food and drug safety , diplomacy , etc.. not bullshit vote pandering and wealth redistribution .
I have no control over how the federal govt spends my money , I have 50-200X the control over my local state.So quit whining about the big mean evil corporations and look at the real problem here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this conversation and others about state taxes interesting because people rarely bring up the real problem.Federal taxes.I pay far, far more in Federal taxes than state taxes.
And what do those assholes do with it?
Send it to another state?
Force the states to implement federal laws which the federal govt.
has no jurisdiction over by holding back highway money to improve the road system I actually use?
Use it to buy votes from old people and poor people?
Pay assholes $8k to buy a house or $4.5k to buy a car?
Seriously, wtf?The Federal govt should be doing things like funding the military, cross-state law enforcement, food and drug safety, diplomacy, etc.. not bullshit vote pandering and wealth redistribution.
I have no control over how the federal govt spends my money, I have 50-200X the control over my local state.So quit whining about the big mean evil corporations and look at the real problem here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873233</id>
	<title>Re:You've gotta love this entitlement mentality</title>
	<author>GSloop</author>
	<datestamp>1256575860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> <b> I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes. This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.</b></i> </p><p>What's stupid about this comment is the flip side.</p><p>It's as if MS simply HAS to increase the price when they pay taxes.</p><p>But, then since they're only doing it because they have to make a small profit, then we can expect them to reduce the cost of the product when they start making too much money? Bah - everyone knows the reverse is crazy - there's simply almost no company that will do that.</p><p>They'll make as much as possible - regardless of what's fair.</p><p>And they'll eat the tax costs when they have to also.</p><p>It's not like Microsoft is barely profitable, and when they have to pay an extra 1\% in tax they'll have to raise the price of their product to remain profitable.</p><p>---<br>Finally...lets look at the macro view...<br>So, when everything is netted out, more tax probably does mean a bit more in the cost of the product. But take that further and look at the macro environment. If MS isn't paying those taxes, and the people want those services, they're going to be paying those costs somewhere else anyway. (i.e. They'll tax someone else...)</p><p>The final logic simply says that having MS pay those taxes might mean their product costs slightly more, but something else will cost slightly less.</p><p>Net effect? Zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes .
This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer .
What 's stupid about this comment is the flip side.It 's as if MS simply HAS to increase the price when they pay taxes.But , then since they 're only doing it because they have to make a small profit , then we can expect them to reduce the cost of the product when they start making too much money ?
Bah - everyone knows the reverse is crazy - there 's simply almost no company that will do that.They 'll make as much as possible - regardless of what 's fair.And they 'll eat the tax costs when they have to also.It 's not like Microsoft is barely profitable , and when they have to pay an extra 1 \ % in tax they 'll have to raise the price of their product to remain profitable.---Finally...lets look at the macro view...So , when everything is netted out , more tax probably does mean a bit more in the cost of the product .
But take that further and look at the macro environment .
If MS is n't paying those taxes , and the people want those services , they 're going to be paying those costs somewhere else anyway .
( i.e. They 'll tax someone else... ) The final logic simply says that having MS pay those taxes might mean their product costs slightly more , but something else will cost slightly less.Net effect ?
Zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes.
This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.
What's stupid about this comment is the flip side.It's as if MS simply HAS to increase the price when they pay taxes.But, then since they're only doing it because they have to make a small profit, then we can expect them to reduce the cost of the product when they start making too much money?
Bah - everyone knows the reverse is crazy - there's simply almost no company that will do that.They'll make as much as possible - regardless of what's fair.And they'll eat the tax costs when they have to also.It's not like Microsoft is barely profitable, and when they have to pay an extra 1\% in tax they'll have to raise the price of their product to remain profitable.---Finally...lets look at the macro view...So, when everything is netted out, more tax probably does mean a bit more in the cost of the product.
But take that further and look at the macro environment.
If MS isn't paying those taxes, and the people want those services, they're going to be paying those costs somewhere else anyway.
(i.e. They'll tax someone else...)The final logic simply says that having MS pay those taxes might mean their product costs slightly more, but something else will cost slightly less.Net effect?
Zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874837</id>
	<title>Re:uh...no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256583420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft doesn't owe Washington jack crap, because what's it's doing with this Nevada thing is entirely legal.</p></div><p>[Citation Needed]</p><p>Which is kinda the entire point of TFA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft does n't owe Washington jack crap , because what 's it 's doing with this Nevada thing is entirely legal .
[ Citation Needed ] Which is kinda the entire point of TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft doesn't owe Washington jack crap, because what's it's doing with this Nevada thing is entirely legal.
[Citation Needed]Which is kinda the entire point of TFA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875487</id>
	<title>Re:It's simple for Washington</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1256586360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except Microsoft has a VERY huge investment in their Redmond offices... moving out of Washington would probably cost Microsoft much more than $1 billion in back taxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except Microsoft has a VERY huge investment in their Redmond offices... moving out of Washington would probably cost Microsoft much more than $ 1 billion in back taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except Microsoft has a VERY huge investment in their Redmond offices... moving out of Washington would probably cost Microsoft much more than $1 billion in back taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875621</id>
	<title>Why are Washington's courts underfunded?</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1256587140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft relies on Washington law and its <em>underfunded courts</em> [emphasis mine -mi] to defend its contract</p></div></blockquote><p>Why are Washington's courts underfunded <em>despite</em> the State having the additional taxes compared to Nevada? I mean, even if Microsoft does not pay <em>their</em> "fair share", at least <em>some</em> other companies in the State do. And yet, the courts remain "underfunded".

</p><p>Could it be, that the tax revenue is being used for <em>something else</em>, and that even if Microsoft did pay as kdawson would want them to, the courts would've remained underfunded anyway?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft relies on Washington law and its underfunded courts [ emphasis mine -mi ] to defend its contractWhy are Washington 's courts underfunded despite the State having the additional taxes compared to Nevada ?
I mean , even if Microsoft does not pay their " fair share " , at least some other companies in the State do .
And yet , the courts remain " underfunded " .
Could it be , that the tax revenue is being used for something else , and that even if Microsoft did pay as kdawson would want them to , the courts would 've remained underfunded anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft relies on Washington law and its underfunded courts [emphasis mine -mi] to defend its contractWhy are Washington's courts underfunded despite the State having the additional taxes compared to Nevada?
I mean, even if Microsoft does not pay their "fair share", at least some other companies in the State do.
And yet, the courts remain "underfunded".
Could it be, that the tax revenue is being used for something else, and that even if Microsoft did pay as kdawson would want them to, the courts would've remained underfunded anyway?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871899</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256569320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Microsoft were paying this 775M+ in taxes they are avoiding with a loophole that is 775M less in taxes that need to be assessed elsewhere.</p></div><p>You will never be able to find a tax reduction you can attribute to the government collecting this. That's not how it works, it just means the government is taking more. That doesn't mean I think the government should tolerate tax evasion. It will make MS a little less profitable/competitive, because they either have to absorb the higher tax from their profits or raise their prices/sales.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft were paying this 775M + in taxes they are avoiding with a loophole that is 775M less in taxes that need to be assessed elsewhere.You will never be able to find a tax reduction you can attribute to the government collecting this .
That 's not how it works , it just means the government is taking more .
That does n't mean I think the government should tolerate tax evasion .
It will make MS a little less profitable/competitive , because they either have to absorb the higher tax from their profits or raise their prices/sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft were paying this 775M+ in taxes they are avoiding with a loophole that is 775M less in taxes that need to be assessed elsewhere.You will never be able to find a tax reduction you can attribute to the government collecting this.
That's not how it works, it just means the government is taking more.
That doesn't mean I think the government should tolerate tax evasion.
It will make MS a little less profitable/competitive, because they either have to absorb the higher tax from their profits or raise their prices/sales.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873943</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256579460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hate MS all you want, but what they're doing is nothing.</p></div><p>Why do people always assume that just because a company is not doing something illegal that they are not doing something wrong.  The law isn't always in line with ethics, and right and wrong more in the realm of ethics than legality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate MS all you want , but what they 're doing is nothing.Why do people always assume that just because a company is not doing something illegal that they are not doing something wrong .
The law is n't always in line with ethics , and right and wrong more in the realm of ethics than legality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate MS all you want, but what they're doing is nothing.Why do people always assume that just because a company is not doing something illegal that they are not doing something wrong.
The law isn't always in line with ethics, and right and wrong more in the realm of ethics than legality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29876079</id>
	<title>Re:You've gotta love this entitlement mentality</title>
	<author>ChaosDiscord</author>
	<datestamp>1256589240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's alright, I don't really pay taxes either, I just pass it on to my employer in the form of higher salary demands.

</p><p>Come to think of it, no one actually pays taxes, they just factor taxes in to their expenses and increase their prices.  It's like the being your own grandfather time-travel paradox.  Now that I've noticed it, the paradox will destroy the world!</p><blockquote><div><p>If Washingtonians don't like it they can change the laws. Then watch as MS moves jobs overseas or to other states.</p></div> </blockquote><p>This small detail, repeated thousands of times across the economy, really captures how much capitalism sucks.  Corporations are relatively mobile and can chase after the best financial opportunities.  Individual people are not.  At the very least, people have pesky things like friends and family they like to stay near.  For many people moving across the state may be financially infeasible.  If you need to care for children or elderly parents or a family member with a severe disability, it may be impossible to follow a job.  If the job moves to another country, it may be impossible to follow that job.  So we all bow down to the powerful corporations and enter a race to the bottom.  Eventually corporations will simply not pay taxes at all, all while enjoy most of the benefits of "personhood."

</p><p>Sadly that's probably the best we can hope for.  I find it especially sad that some people are cheering this on like it's a good thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's alright , I do n't really pay taxes either , I just pass it on to my employer in the form of higher salary demands .
Come to think of it , no one actually pays taxes , they just factor taxes in to their expenses and increase their prices .
It 's like the being your own grandfather time-travel paradox .
Now that I 've noticed it , the paradox will destroy the world ! If Washingtonians do n't like it they can change the laws .
Then watch as MS moves jobs overseas or to other states .
This small detail , repeated thousands of times across the economy , really captures how much capitalism sucks .
Corporations are relatively mobile and can chase after the best financial opportunities .
Individual people are not .
At the very least , people have pesky things like friends and family they like to stay near .
For many people moving across the state may be financially infeasible .
If you need to care for children or elderly parents or a family member with a severe disability , it may be impossible to follow a job .
If the job moves to another country , it may be impossible to follow that job .
So we all bow down to the powerful corporations and enter a race to the bottom .
Eventually corporations will simply not pay taxes at all , all while enjoy most of the benefits of " personhood .
" Sadly that 's probably the best we can hope for .
I find it especially sad that some people are cheering this on like it 's a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's alright, I don't really pay taxes either, I just pass it on to my employer in the form of higher salary demands.
Come to think of it, no one actually pays taxes, they just factor taxes in to their expenses and increase their prices.
It's like the being your own grandfather time-travel paradox.
Now that I've noticed it, the paradox will destroy the world!If Washingtonians don't like it they can change the laws.
Then watch as MS moves jobs overseas or to other states.
This small detail, repeated thousands of times across the economy, really captures how much capitalism sucks.
Corporations are relatively mobile and can chase after the best financial opportunities.
Individual people are not.
At the very least, people have pesky things like friends and family they like to stay near.
For many people moving across the state may be financially infeasible.
If you need to care for children or elderly parents or a family member with a severe disability, it may be impossible to follow a job.
If the job moves to another country, it may be impossible to follow that job.
So we all bow down to the powerful corporations and enter a race to the bottom.
Eventually corporations will simply not pay taxes at all, all while enjoy most of the benefits of "personhood.
"

Sadly that's probably the best we can hope for.
I find it especially sad that some people are cheering this on like it's a good thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873893</id>
	<title>Re:Buy your MS licenses in China</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1256579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So then Microsoft would have no problem with me buying my MS licenses in China and using them in the US, right?</p><p>Yeah, riiiiiight.</p></div><p>I've no idea what you had in mind, but, yes, Microsoft would have no problem with you doing that. Windows licenses aren't tied to any specific location, and Windows activation scheme doesn't enforce any regional restrictions, either.</p><p>I've had a laptop with XP bought and used in NZ for a year, then in Russia for two more years, and now in Canada; and another one with XP bought in Russia and used in Canada. In no case has it been a problem - including reinstalls/reactivations.</p><p>Then again, Windows price is of the same order of magnitude everywhere. It's not like with movies, where you can have the same thing legally 10x cheaper somewhere in Russia or China compared to U.S.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So then Microsoft would have no problem with me buying my MS licenses in China and using them in the US , right ? Yeah , riiiiiight.I 've no idea what you had in mind , but , yes , Microsoft would have no problem with you doing that .
Windows licenses are n't tied to any specific location , and Windows activation scheme does n't enforce any regional restrictions , either.I 've had a laptop with XP bought and used in NZ for a year , then in Russia for two more years , and now in Canada ; and another one with XP bought in Russia and used in Canada .
In no case has it been a problem - including reinstalls/reactivations.Then again , Windows price is of the same order of magnitude everywhere .
It 's not like with movies , where you can have the same thing legally 10x cheaper somewhere in Russia or China compared to U.S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then Microsoft would have no problem with me buying my MS licenses in China and using them in the US, right?Yeah, riiiiiight.I've no idea what you had in mind, but, yes, Microsoft would have no problem with you doing that.
Windows licenses aren't tied to any specific location, and Windows activation scheme doesn't enforce any regional restrictions, either.I've had a laptop with XP bought and used in NZ for a year, then in Russia for two more years, and now in Canada; and another one with XP bought in Russia and used in Canada.
In no case has it been a problem - including reinstalls/reactivations.Then again, Windows price is of the same order of magnitude everywhere.
It's not like with movies, where you can have the same thing legally 10x cheaper somewhere in Russia or China compared to U.S.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871717</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256568420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Taxes are a necessary evil in society.  We can debate individual taxes all you want, but your blanket statement of giving the government the most possible tax money is off base.  If Microsoft were paying this 775M+ in taxes they are avoiding with a loophole that is 775M less in taxes that need to be assessed elsewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxes are a necessary evil in society .
We can debate individual taxes all you want , but your blanket statement of giving the government the most possible tax money is off base .
If Microsoft were paying this 775M + in taxes they are avoiding with a loophole that is 775M less in taxes that need to be assessed elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxes are a necessary evil in society.
We can debate individual taxes all you want, but your blanket statement of giving the government the most possible tax money is off base.
If Microsoft were paying this 775M+ in taxes they are avoiding with a loophole that is 775M less in taxes that need to be assessed elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872581</id>
	<title>Wrong on the law</title>
	<author>Taylor123456789</author>
	<datestamp>1256572560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trial courts are based at the county level, not the state level.  Counties get their revenues from property taxes and sales taxes within their borders, not state income tax. It is wrong to say that Microsoft is avoiding paying the same taxes that fund the courts.</p><p>Also, each of the doctrines mentioned in the article has a specific usage.  They don't stand alone as a cause of action (lawsuit).  The author of the original article is not a lawyer.  As they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trial courts are based at the county level , not the state level .
Counties get their revenues from property taxes and sales taxes within their borders , not state income tax .
It is wrong to say that Microsoft is avoiding paying the same taxes that fund the courts.Also , each of the doctrines mentioned in the article has a specific usage .
They do n't stand alone as a cause of action ( lawsuit ) .
The author of the original article is not a lawyer .
As they say , " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trial courts are based at the county level, not the state level.
Counties get their revenues from property taxes and sales taxes within their borders, not state income tax.
It is wrong to say that Microsoft is avoiding paying the same taxes that fund the courts.Also, each of the doctrines mentioned in the article has a specific usage.
They don't stand alone as a cause of action (lawsuit).
The author of the original article is not a lawyer.
As they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975</id>
	<title>You've gotta love this entitlement mentality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256569740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Washingtonians don't like it they can change the laws. Then watch as MS moves jobs overseas or to other states.
<p>.<br>
I have a mutual fund that includes MS stock and I expect them to use all legal means possible to reduce their expenses. One way is to minimize taxes.
</p><p>
I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes. This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Washingtonians do n't like it they can change the laws .
Then watch as MS moves jobs overseas or to other states .
. I have a mutual fund that includes MS stock and I expect them to use all legal means possible to reduce their expenses .
One way is to minimize taxes .
I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes .
This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Washingtonians don't like it they can change the laws.
Then watch as MS moves jobs overseas or to other states.
.
I have a mutual fund that includes MS stock and I expect them to use all legal means possible to reduce their expenses.
One way is to minimize taxes.
I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes.
This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874947</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256583960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Microsoft needed to make one choice</b></p><p>No.  No they don't.</p><p>Now I'm not COMPLETELY certain about Washington, but if I'm not mistaken, filing for legal action is NOT a free process.  The state charges fees for this (at least they did when I sued a guy here in Illinois).</p><p>This is simply another baseless bitch about how Microsoft is "getting over" in an attempt to simply grab MORE money from Microsoft.  If you think Microsoft is getting off scott-free in Washington, you're NUTS.  On top of that, exactly how much is Microsoft pumping into the local economy through their employees?</p><p>If you want to be anti-corporate, fine.  If you want to be envious of a person or corporate entity that has more money than you, fine.  Just be up-front about your motivations in the first place, with yourself especially.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft needed to make one choiceNo .
No they do n't.Now I 'm not COMPLETELY certain about Washington , but if I 'm not mistaken , filing for legal action is NOT a free process .
The state charges fees for this ( at least they did when I sued a guy here in Illinois ) .This is simply another baseless bitch about how Microsoft is " getting over " in an attempt to simply grab MORE money from Microsoft .
If you think Microsoft is getting off scott-free in Washington , you 're NUTS .
On top of that , exactly how much is Microsoft pumping into the local economy through their employees ? If you want to be anti-corporate , fine .
If you want to be envious of a person or corporate entity that has more money than you , fine .
Just be up-front about your motivations in the first place , with yourself especially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft needed to make one choiceNo.
No they don't.Now I'm not COMPLETELY certain about Washington, but if I'm not mistaken, filing for legal action is NOT a free process.
The state charges fees for this (at least they did when I sued a guy here in Illinois).This is simply another baseless bitch about how Microsoft is "getting over" in an attempt to simply grab MORE money from Microsoft.
If you think Microsoft is getting off scott-free in Washington, you're NUTS.
On top of that, exactly how much is Microsoft pumping into the local economy through their employees?If you want to be anti-corporate, fine.
If you want to be envious of a person or corporate entity that has more money than you, fine.
Just be up-front about your motivations in the first place, with yourself especially.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873537</id>
	<title>I can't believe I'm saying this but ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256577360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the net result to the state / province / country, may not be as bad as companies which offshore their employees ( and the taxes those employees pay ) to another country. The total of the employees' taxes may be greater than the corporations taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the net result to the state / province / country , may not be as bad as companies which offshore their employees ( and the taxes those employees pay ) to another country .
The total of the employees ' taxes may be greater than the corporations taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the net result to the state / province / country, may not be as bad as companies which offshore their employees ( and the taxes those employees pay ) to another country.
The total of the employees' taxes may be greater than the corporations taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872105</id>
	<title>This is news?</title>
	<author>TwistedGreen</author>
	<datestamp>1256570460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what? This is what tax lawyers DO. Any competent company would do this, and I don't see anything wrong with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ?
This is what tax lawyers DO .
Any competent company would do this , and I do n't see anything wrong with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?
This is what tax lawyers DO.
Any competent company would do this, and I don't see anything wrong with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875953</id>
	<title>Re:uh...no</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1256588640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Washington would probably have already done this if MS hadn't grabbed them by the balls.</p><p>What I'd like to know is how we in capitalistic america ever let corporations get stronger than governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Washington would probably have already done this if MS had n't grabbed them by the balls.What I 'd like to know is how we in capitalistic america ever let corporations get stronger than governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Washington would probably have already done this if MS hadn't grabbed them by the balls.What I'd like to know is how we in capitalistic america ever let corporations get stronger than governments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874155</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1256580360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not the Constitution; you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which was more or less a declaration of War against Britain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the Constitution ; you 're thinking of the Declaration of Independence , which was more or less a declaration of War against Britain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the Constitution; you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which was more or less a declaration of War against Britain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29876123</id>
	<title>Big deal...</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1256589480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is pretty much standard operating procedure for corporations from "mom and pop" all the way up the chain to multi-billion dollar businesses.  It's been this way for decades and will continue to be this way.</p><p>This wouldn't be any kind of news if it weren't MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty much standard operating procedure for corporations from " mom and pop " all the way up the chain to multi-billion dollar businesses .
It 's been this way for decades and will continue to be this way.This would n't be any kind of news if it were n't MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty much standard operating procedure for corporations from "mom and pop" all the way up the chain to multi-billion dollar businesses.
It's been this way for decades and will continue to be this way.This wouldn't be any kind of news if it weren't MS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872989</id>
	<title>Re:They pay some</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1256574840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, combined 9\% sales tax and no income tax, nice area. I pay 7.75\% sales tax AND state income AND local income tax both where I work and where I reside AND about 6\% property tax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , combined 9 \ % sales tax and no income tax , nice area .
I pay 7.75 \ % sales tax AND state income AND local income tax both where I work and where I reside AND about 6 \ % property tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, combined 9\% sales tax and no income tax, nice area.
I pay 7.75\% sales tax AND state income AND local income tax both where I work and where I reside AND about 6\% property tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873137</id>
	<title>Dupe: posted previoulsy by kdawson!</title>
	<author>porsche922</author>
	<datestamp>1256575500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What M$ is doing in not right but is not illegal apparently. so for any thing to happen the law needs to be changed. and I believe this guy has been trying to do this for years for this story has been posted several times on slashdot, with hundreds of comments on each post with same gist.
<a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/09/22/225233/Microsoft-Tax-Dodge-At-Issue-In-Washington-State" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/09/22/225233/Microsoft-Tax-Dodge-At-Issue-In-Washington-State</a> [slashdot.org] (Sept 22, 09)
<a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/04/1520219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/04/1520219</a> [slashdot.org] (Feb 04, 08)
and <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/01/2137228" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/01/2137228</a> [slashdot.org] (Oct 01, 04)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What M $ is doing in not right but is not illegal apparently .
so for any thing to happen the law needs to be changed .
and I believe this guy has been trying to do this for years for this story has been posted several times on slashdot , with hundreds of comments on each post with same gist .
http : //news.slashdot.org/story/09/09/22/225233/Microsoft-Tax-Dodge-At-Issue-In-Washington-State [ slashdot.org ] ( Sept 22 , 09 ) http : //slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/02/04/1520219 [ slashdot.org ] ( Feb 04 , 08 ) and http : //slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 04/10/01/2137228 [ slashdot.org ] ( Oct 01 , 04 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What M$ is doing in not right but is not illegal apparently.
so for any thing to happen the law needs to be changed.
and I believe this guy has been trying to do this for years for this story has been posted several times on slashdot, with hundreds of comments on each post with same gist.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/09/22/225233/Microsoft-Tax-Dodge-At-Issue-In-Washington-State [slashdot.org] (Sept 22, 09)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/04/1520219 [slashdot.org] (Feb 04, 08)
and http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/01/2137228 [slashdot.org] (Oct 01, 04)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872083</id>
	<title>Re:Buy your MS licenses in China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256570340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OTOH, a friend in Germany just bought a Apple Care subscription from the US just because it was much cheaper in the US.</p><p>Everybody minimizes their expenses.</p><p>And every jurisdiction tries to game the system to take advantage. I laugh at the uproar when a company just closes the plant and repays the big tax break they had been given for the politically attractive promise to create jobs.  As if you'd expect corporations to operate with anything but their self interest in mind. If they didn't, the stock holders would be firing the executives.</p><p>No matter if it is a sales tax, a VAT, or income tax...the money still has to be raised somehow to pay for the services the citizens demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , a friend in Germany just bought a Apple Care subscription from the US just because it was much cheaper in the US.Everybody minimizes their expenses.And every jurisdiction tries to game the system to take advantage .
I laugh at the uproar when a company just closes the plant and repays the big tax break they had been given for the politically attractive promise to create jobs .
As if you 'd expect corporations to operate with anything but their self interest in mind .
If they did n't , the stock holders would be firing the executives.No matter if it is a sales tax , a VAT , or income tax...the money still has to be raised somehow to pay for the services the citizens demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, a friend in Germany just bought a Apple Care subscription from the US just because it was much cheaper in the US.Everybody minimizes their expenses.And every jurisdiction tries to game the system to take advantage.
I laugh at the uproar when a company just closes the plant and repays the big tax break they had been given for the politically attractive promise to create jobs.
As if you'd expect corporations to operate with anything but their self interest in mind.
If they didn't, the stock holders would be firing the executives.No matter if it is a sales tax, a VAT, or income tax...the money still has to be raised somehow to pay for the services the citizens demand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29882241</id>
	<title>Re:They pay some</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256648220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My state double dips. 6.5\% sales tax and an income tax.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My state double dips .
6.5 \ % sales tax and an income tax .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My state double dips.
6.5\% sales tax and an income tax.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873711</id>
	<title>Re:You've gotta love this entitlement mentality</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1256578320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's bullshit, you know perfectly well that they won't do it. The loss of revenue from losing the court system and numerous other perks that aren't available in cheaper jurisdictions will ensure that. It's something they claim even though nobody in their right mind believes that they would do it. But there's enough cowards in the state that keep voting for people that promise to appease large corporations.<br> <br>

Sure they whine about the tax burden, but they don't pay as much as most people do and they get a hell of a lot more out of it than they ought to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's bullshit , you know perfectly well that they wo n't do it .
The loss of revenue from losing the court system and numerous other perks that are n't available in cheaper jurisdictions will ensure that .
It 's something they claim even though nobody in their right mind believes that they would do it .
But there 's enough cowards in the state that keep voting for people that promise to appease large corporations .
Sure they whine about the tax burden , but they do n't pay as much as most people do and they get a hell of a lot more out of it than they ought to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's bullshit, you know perfectly well that they won't do it.
The loss of revenue from losing the court system and numerous other perks that aren't available in cheaper jurisdictions will ensure that.
It's something they claim even though nobody in their right mind believes that they would do it.
But there's enough cowards in the state that keep voting for people that promise to appease large corporations.
Sure they whine about the tax burden, but they don't pay as much as most people do and they get a hell of a lot more out of it than they ought to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874297</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1256581080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Cashpocalypse" I like that. Mind if I borrow it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cashpocalypse " I like that .
Mind if I borrow it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cashpocalypse" I like that.
Mind if I borrow it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872125</id>
	<title>UK</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1256570580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was reading an article from the BBC on corporations in the UK claiming other countries as their headquarters to save tax dollars.</p><p>Evidently if you do this in the UK, they check see that the heads of the company are ACTUALLY operating in that country.</p><p>Why don't we do that here in the US? It seems like a fair standard to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was reading an article from the BBC on corporations in the UK claiming other countries as their headquarters to save tax dollars.Evidently if you do this in the UK , they check see that the heads of the company are ACTUALLY operating in that country.Why do n't we do that here in the US ?
It seems like a fair standard to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was reading an article from the BBC on corporations in the UK claiming other countries as their headquarters to save tax dollars.Evidently if you do this in the UK, they check see that the heads of the company are ACTUALLY operating in that country.Why don't we do that here in the US?
It seems like a fair standard to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29877821</id>
	<title>Re:You've gotta love this entitlement mentality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256553240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a stockholder, it must drive you nuts every time MS donates to some charitable cause, or sponsors a junior soccer team.<br>After all, their sole purpose should be to maximize stockholders' returns, right?</p><p>What's that? All MS contributions are business investments that yield tangible dollar returns? You don't say.<br>And taxes don't? They don't minimize business costs?</p><p>What a strange world view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a stockholder , it must drive you nuts every time MS donates to some charitable cause , or sponsors a junior soccer team.After all , their sole purpose should be to maximize stockholders ' returns , right ? What 's that ?
All MS contributions are business investments that yield tangible dollar returns ?
You do n't say.And taxes do n't ?
They do n't minimize business costs ? What a strange world view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a stockholder, it must drive you nuts every time MS donates to some charitable cause, or sponsors a junior soccer team.After all, their sole purpose should be to maximize stockholders' returns, right?What's that?
All MS contributions are business investments that yield tangible dollar returns?
You don't say.And taxes don't?
They don't minimize business costs?What a strange world view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874923</id>
	<title>Re:They pay some</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256583720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>King County Washington, where felons are allowed to vote more than once!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>King County Washington , where felons are allowed to vote more than once !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>King County Washington, where felons are allowed to vote more than once!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781</id>
	<title>They pay some</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256568720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live here in Seattle, and this has been discussed in the newspapers before.  Actually Microsoft does sell software here in Washington, just not very much.  However, I think the state is just as happy to have all the high paying jobs.  Technically Boeing is the largest single employer here in Seattle and they have sold planes out of Delaware for many years.  It's nothing new.
<br>
<br>
Washington state has sales tax in place of income tax in other states.  Currently it is 6.5\% state wide, with an added 2.5\% here in King county.  So MS, Boeing, Motorola, Adobe, etc. all have sales outlets outside the state.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live here in Seattle , and this has been discussed in the newspapers before .
Actually Microsoft does sell software here in Washington , just not very much .
However , I think the state is just as happy to have all the high paying jobs .
Technically Boeing is the largest single employer here in Seattle and they have sold planes out of Delaware for many years .
It 's nothing new .
Washington state has sales tax in place of income tax in other states .
Currently it is 6.5 \ % state wide , with an added 2.5 \ % here in King county .
So MS , Boeing , Motorola , Adobe , etc .
all have sales outlets outside the state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live here in Seattle, and this has been discussed in the newspapers before.
Actually Microsoft does sell software here in Washington, just not very much.
However, I think the state is just as happy to have all the high paying jobs.
Technically Boeing is the largest single employer here in Seattle and they have sold planes out of Delaware for many years.
It's nothing new.
Washington state has sales tax in place of income tax in other states.
Currently it is 6.5\% state wide, with an added 2.5\% here in King county.
So MS, Boeing, Motorola, Adobe, etc.
all have sales outlets outside the state.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871955</id>
	<title>hell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256569680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>burn bitches burn in a hell</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>burn bitches burn in a hell</tokentext>
<sentencetext>burn bitches burn in a hell</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871821</id>
	<title>Very Fair</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1256568960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it could n't happen to a nicer guy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872081</id>
	<title>Do away with income taxes (corporate and personal)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256570340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why we need to do away with income taxes, and use only a point-of-sale tax like the FairTac (http://FairTax.org)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why we need to do away with income taxes , and use only a point-of-sale tax like the FairTac ( http : //FairTax.org )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why we need to do away with income taxes, and use only a point-of-sale tax like the FairTac (http://FairTax.org)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875315</id>
	<title>Re:They pay some</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256585640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For comparison, a person living in Los Angeles County, California will pay 9.75\% total sales tax in addition to a state income tax.  Nevada runs ads in California to entice businesses to relocate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For comparison , a person living in Los Angeles County , California will pay 9.75 \ % total sales tax in addition to a state income tax .
Nevada runs ads in California to entice businesses to relocate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For comparison, a person living in Los Angeles County, California will pay 9.75\% total sales tax in addition to a state income tax.
Nevada runs ads in California to entice businesses to relocate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872659</id>
	<title>Taxation is a Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256573040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good for them. This is what they pay their lawyers and bean counters for. If they weren't working the system like this I would be disappointed.<br>All businesses and individuals should reduce their tax burden any way they can. If uncle sugar didn't want it to happen he would change the rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good for them .
This is what they pay their lawyers and bean counters for .
If they were n't working the system like this I would be disappointed.All businesses and individuals should reduce their tax burden any way they can .
If uncle sugar did n't want it to happen he would change the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good for them.
This is what they pay their lawyers and bean counters for.
If they weren't working the system like this I would be disappointed.All businesses and individuals should reduce their tax burden any way they can.
If uncle sugar didn't want it to happen he would change the rules.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874359</id>
	<title>Re:They pay some</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1256581260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Washington state has sales tax in place of income tax in other states.  Currently it is 6.5\% state wide, with an added 2.5\% here in King county.</p></div><p>Funny, the ~9\% sales tax here in California doesn't ward of income taxes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Washington state has sales tax in place of income tax in other states .
Currently it is 6.5 \ % state wide , with an added 2.5 \ % here in King county.Funny , the ~ 9 \ % sales tax here in California does n't ward of income taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Washington state has sales tax in place of income tax in other states.
Currently it is 6.5\% state wide, with an added 2.5\% here in King county.Funny, the ~9\% sales tax here in California doesn't ward of income taxes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29884449</id>
	<title>Re:uh...no</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1256661180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the heck is this modded +5 insightful? Did you even bother to RTFA?</p><p><i>Microsoft doesn't owe Washington jack crap</i></p><p>If you click the article link, it presents a legal argument that Microsoft does owe Washington State for unpaid back taxes. I'm not a lawyer, but I am more familiar with the law than most. He does appear to have backed up his argument and statements in reasonable rational and plausible manner.</p><p>It's certainly possible he's wrong, but you did not present the slightest reason, argument, or indication that he's wrong. Your entire post amounted to saying "Nuh Uh!". That is hardly Insightful, it is definitely not Informative, and not exactly Interesting.</p><p><i>because what's it's doing with this Nevada thing is entirely legal</i></p><p>No one disputes that Microsoft's actions were legal, he presents a reasonable and plausible case that those actions do not <i>successfully</i> exempt Microsoft from paying those taxes.</p><p><i>If Washington wants a piece of the pie then they need to change their state law to prohibit this practice by entities incorporated in Washington.</i></p><p>According to the legal argument he presented, there is absolutely no need to change Washington law. If he is correct, then under existing Washington law Microsoft does (and always did) have a legal obligation to pay those taxes. You presented "jack crap" to suggest he isn't correct.</p><p>Lets say I buy a post office box in the Bahamas, and I claim that as my residence in some tax avoidance scheme, and I don't bother paying my taxes for five years. Just because the government has not (yet) gone after me to collect those taxes does not mean that my tax avoidance scheme is legally valid. It does not mean I do not actually owe those taxes. If my contrived "Bahama residence" tax tactic doesn't legally work, then I am merely a tax evader who has not yet been prosecuted for those unpaid taxes.</p><p>That is the case he's presenting. A case that Microsoft's tax tactic of attempting to arbitrarily assign a select part of their revenues to a different state may not work under the law to avoid their Washington tax liabilities.</p><p>Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but your post on the subject was completely vacuous.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the heck is this modded + 5 insightful ?
Did you even bother to RTFA ? Microsoft does n't owe Washington jack crapIf you click the article link , it presents a legal argument that Microsoft does owe Washington State for unpaid back taxes .
I 'm not a lawyer , but I am more familiar with the law than most .
He does appear to have backed up his argument and statements in reasonable rational and plausible manner.It 's certainly possible he 's wrong , but you did not present the slightest reason , argument , or indication that he 's wrong .
Your entire post amounted to saying " Nuh Uh ! " .
That is hardly Insightful , it is definitely not Informative , and not exactly Interesting.because what 's it 's doing with this Nevada thing is entirely legalNo one disputes that Microsoft 's actions were legal , he presents a reasonable and plausible case that those actions do not successfully exempt Microsoft from paying those taxes.If Washington wants a piece of the pie then they need to change their state law to prohibit this practice by entities incorporated in Washington.According to the legal argument he presented , there is absolutely no need to change Washington law .
If he is correct , then under existing Washington law Microsoft does ( and always did ) have a legal obligation to pay those taxes .
You presented " jack crap " to suggest he is n't correct.Lets say I buy a post office box in the Bahamas , and I claim that as my residence in some tax avoidance scheme , and I do n't bother paying my taxes for five years .
Just because the government has not ( yet ) gone after me to collect those taxes does not mean that my tax avoidance scheme is legally valid .
It does not mean I do not actually owe those taxes .
If my contrived " Bahama residence " tax tactic does n't legally work , then I am merely a tax evader who has not yet been prosecuted for those unpaid taxes.That is the case he 's presenting .
A case that Microsoft 's tax tactic of attempting to arbitrarily assign a select part of their revenues to a different state may not work under the law to avoid their Washington tax liabilities.Maybe he 's right , maybe he 's wrong , but your post on the subject was completely vacuous.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the heck is this modded +5 insightful?
Did you even bother to RTFA?Microsoft doesn't owe Washington jack crapIf you click the article link, it presents a legal argument that Microsoft does owe Washington State for unpaid back taxes.
I'm not a lawyer, but I am more familiar with the law than most.
He does appear to have backed up his argument and statements in reasonable rational and plausible manner.It's certainly possible he's wrong, but you did not present the slightest reason, argument, or indication that he's wrong.
Your entire post amounted to saying "Nuh Uh!".
That is hardly Insightful, it is definitely not Informative, and not exactly Interesting.because what's it's doing with this Nevada thing is entirely legalNo one disputes that Microsoft's actions were legal, he presents a reasonable and plausible case that those actions do not successfully exempt Microsoft from paying those taxes.If Washington wants a piece of the pie then they need to change their state law to prohibit this practice by entities incorporated in Washington.According to the legal argument he presented, there is absolutely no need to change Washington law.
If he is correct, then under existing Washington law Microsoft does (and always did) have a legal obligation to pay those taxes.
You presented "jack crap" to suggest he isn't correct.Lets say I buy a post office box in the Bahamas, and I claim that as my residence in some tax avoidance scheme, and I don't bother paying my taxes for five years.
Just because the government has not (yet) gone after me to collect those taxes does not mean that my tax avoidance scheme is legally valid.
It does not mean I do not actually owe those taxes.
If my contrived "Bahama residence" tax tactic doesn't legally work, then I am merely a tax evader who has not yet been prosecuted for those unpaid taxes.That is the case he's presenting.
A case that Microsoft's tax tactic of attempting to arbitrarily assign a select part of their revenues to a different state may not work under the law to avoid their Washington tax liabilities.Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but your post on the subject was completely vacuous.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873229</id>
	<title>Microsoft is doing what everyone else does:</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256575860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying to minimize their tax liability in a grotesquely complex and arbitrary system.  Quit being righteously indignant.  You do it too.  Taxes are not voluntary.  Everybody pays what they have to and no more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to minimize their tax liability in a grotesquely complex and arbitrary system .
Quit being righteously indignant .
You do it too .
Taxes are not voluntary .
Everybody pays what they have to and no more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to minimize their tax liability in a grotesquely complex and arbitrary system.
Quit being righteously indignant.
You do it too.
Taxes are not voluntary.
Everybody pays what they have to and no more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872057</id>
	<title>And patent trolls...</title>
	<author>Marthisdil</author>
	<datestamp>1256570220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open suites in the Eastern District of Texas, regardless of where they are based..

Anyways...I digress...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open suites in the Eastern District of Texas , regardless of where they are based. . Anyways...I digress.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open suites in the Eastern District of Texas, regardless of where they are based..

Anyways...I digress...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872123</id>
	<title>Michael J. Fox?</title>
	<author>DavMz</author>
	<datestamp>1256570580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does the name of Michael J. Fox appears at the top of the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/21624322/Microsoft-Licensing-GP-Lawsuit-Summons-Complaint" title="scribd.com" rel="nofollow">contract</a> [scribd.com]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the name of Michael J. Fox appears at the top of the contract [ scribd.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the name of Michael J. Fox appears at the top of the contract [scribd.com]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874385</id>
	<title>So what's your stand on globalization M$?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256581380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you vouch for <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/09/02/2036227/Microsoft-Pushes-For-Single-Global-Patent-System" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">global patent system</a> [slashdot.org], eh? How 'bout <b>A FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM?!</b></p><p>I have <a href="http://msversus.org/" title="msversus.org" rel="nofollow">zero respect for Micro$oft</a> [msversus.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you vouch for global patent system [ slashdot.org ] , eh ?
How 'bout A FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM ?
! I have zero respect for Micro $ oft [ msversus.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you vouch for global patent system [slashdot.org], eh?
How 'bout A FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM?
!I have zero respect for Micro$oft [msversus.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29876951</id>
	<title>Re:Buy your MS licenses in China</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1256549760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the keys are tied to the OS type (home, premium, business, etc), not to languages.</p><p>So you could buy in China and install the English version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the keys are tied to the OS type ( home , premium , business , etc ) , not to languages.So you could buy in China and install the English version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the keys are tied to the OS type (home, premium, business, etc), not to languages.So you could buy in China and install the English version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872651</id>
	<title>Astroturfing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256572980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-= According to Wikipedia =-</p><p>Astroturfing is an English-language euphemism referring to political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but designed to mask its origins to create the impression of being spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior. The term refers to AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.</p><p>Thus, submitting a story to your own blog is probably Astroturfing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- = According to Wikipedia = -Astroturfing is an English-language euphemism referring to political , advertising , or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization , but designed to mask its origins to create the impression of being spontaneous , popular " grassroots " behavior .
The term refers to AstroTurf , a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.Thus , submitting a story to your own blog is probably Astroturfing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-= According to Wikipedia =-Astroturfing is an English-language euphemism referring to political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but designed to mask its origins to create the impression of being spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior.
The term refers to AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.Thus, submitting a story to your own blog is probably Astroturfing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29885169</id>
	<title>Re:Legal doctrines?</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1256664600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only do that all sound like sci-fi movies, but those titles all sound a thousand times better than 'Mansquito' and the rest of the crap the Sci-Fi Channel has been producing.</p><p>Oh, I'm sorry.... I mean the crap 'Syfy' has been shitting out. Their rebranding attempt is so bad I pronounce it Sif-ee.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only do that all sound like sci-fi movies , but those titles all sound a thousand times better than 'Mansquito ' and the rest of the crap the Sci-Fi Channel has been producing.Oh , I 'm sorry.... I mean the crap 'Syfy ' has been shitting out .
Their rebranding attempt is so bad I pronounce it Sif-ee.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only do that all sound like sci-fi movies, but those titles all sound a thousand times better than 'Mansquito' and the rest of the crap the Sci-Fi Channel has been producing.Oh, I'm sorry.... I mean the crap 'Syfy' has been shitting out.
Their rebranding attempt is so bad I pronounce it Sif-ee.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873377</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1256576460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it doesn't.  Its headquarters is in WA.  This is pretty typical stuff here, and instead of crying that the state is losing money, maybe we need to rethink exactly what it is government should be doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it does n't .
Its headquarters is in WA .
This is pretty typical stuff here , and instead of crying that the state is losing money , maybe we need to rethink exactly what it is government should be doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it doesn't.
Its headquarters is in WA.
This is pretty typical stuff here, and instead of crying that the state is losing money, maybe we need to rethink exactly what it is government should be doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873999</id>
	<title>Re:uh...no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256579640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right that "Microsoft doesn't owe Washington jack crap", but since Microsoft is trying to run a software licensing case between itself and a company from New York, Washington doesn't owe Microsoft jack crap.  Microsoft's software licensing business is in Nevada and the other company is in New York.  A Washington court has no jurisdiction, according to Microsoft anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right that " Microsoft does n't owe Washington jack crap " , but since Microsoft is trying to run a software licensing case between itself and a company from New York , Washington does n't owe Microsoft jack crap .
Microsoft 's software licensing business is in Nevada and the other company is in New York .
A Washington court has no jurisdiction , according to Microsoft anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right that "Microsoft doesn't owe Washington jack crap", but since Microsoft is trying to run a software licensing case between itself and a company from New York, Washington doesn't owe Microsoft jack crap.
Microsoft's software licensing business is in Nevada and the other company is in New York.
A Washington court has no jurisdiction, according to Microsoft anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875233</id>
	<title>Re:You've gotta love this entitlement mentality</title>
	<author>bflong</author>
	<datestamp>1256585220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have a mutual fund that includes MS stock and I expect them to use all legal means possible to reduce their expenses.</i></p><p>Legal does not mean ethical. So you're saying you don't care what they do, as long as your mutual fund goes up a few points. This is whats wrong with the system: People are selfish. You can only create so many laws, and there is an army of high-paid lawyers who pick though those laws and find the loopholes, which are there because the law was written by said high-paid lawyers. Until people actually start to care about the ethics nothing is ever going to change for the better. Unfortunately people will not start caring until the bad ethics bite THEM, at which time they will scream their whiny little hearts out about it. But it will be too late, because the system only cares about making money and it already took all theirs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a mutual fund that includes MS stock and I expect them to use all legal means possible to reduce their expenses.Legal does not mean ethical .
So you 're saying you do n't care what they do , as long as your mutual fund goes up a few points .
This is whats wrong with the system : People are selfish .
You can only create so many laws , and there is an army of high-paid lawyers who pick though those laws and find the loopholes , which are there because the law was written by said high-paid lawyers .
Until people actually start to care about the ethics nothing is ever going to change for the better .
Unfortunately people will not start caring until the bad ethics bite THEM , at which time they will scream their whiny little hearts out about it .
But it will be too late , because the system only cares about making money and it already took all theirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a mutual fund that includes MS stock and I expect them to use all legal means possible to reduce their expenses.Legal does not mean ethical.
So you're saying you don't care what they do, as long as your mutual fund goes up a few points.
This is whats wrong with the system: People are selfish.
You can only create so many laws, and there is an army of high-paid lawyers who pick though those laws and find the loopholes, which are there because the law was written by said high-paid lawyers.
Until people actually start to care about the ethics nothing is ever going to change for the better.
Unfortunately people will not start caring until the bad ethics bite THEM, at which time they will scream their whiny little hearts out about it.
But it will be too late, because the system only cares about making money and it already took all theirs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873107</id>
	<title>Is there really anything wrong here?</title>
	<author>Wallslide</author>
	<datestamp>1256575440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's possible that the Washington State government is perfectly fine with the situation.  After all, I'm sure Microsoft brings in a lot of money to the state despite finding a loophole in this particular area.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible that the Washington State government is perfectly fine with the situation .
After all , I 'm sure Microsoft brings in a lot of money to the state despite finding a loophole in this particular area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible that the Washington State government is perfectly fine with the situation.
After all, I'm sure Microsoft brings in a lot of money to the state despite finding a loophole in this particular area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871993</id>
	<title>Re:What a Troll!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256569920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not that anyone cares that MSFT booked the revenue in Nevada.</p><p>BUT, That means the Laws of Nevada are dominant, not Washington.  Microsoft needed to make one choice, but they seem to want the best of both worlds.</p></div><p>I know. Unfortunately, a law passed in <a href="http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/tax-issues/29235-irs-companies-avoiding-u-s-taxes-moving-their-headquarters-offshore.html" title="worldlawdirect.com" rel="nofollow">2004</a> [worldlawdirect.com] bars companies from going offshore to get around the most Byzantine tax system in the World that we have here in the US. Does it cross anyone's mind to change our tax system? Nope. We just keep piling shit on shit, causing this jockeying. </p><p>Hate MS all you want, but what they're doing is nothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that anyone cares that MSFT booked the revenue in Nevada.BUT , That means the Laws of Nevada are dominant , not Washington .
Microsoft needed to make one choice , but they seem to want the best of both worlds.I know .
Unfortunately , a law passed in 2004 [ worldlawdirect.com ] bars companies from going offshore to get around the most Byzantine tax system in the World that we have here in the US .
Does it cross anyone 's mind to change our tax system ?
Nope. We just keep piling shit on shit , causing this jockeying .
Hate MS all you want , but what they 're doing is nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that anyone cares that MSFT booked the revenue in Nevada.BUT, That means the Laws of Nevada are dominant, not Washington.
Microsoft needed to make one choice, but they seem to want the best of both worlds.I know.
Unfortunately, a law passed in 2004 [worldlawdirect.com] bars companies from going offshore to get around the most Byzantine tax system in the World that we have here in the US.
Does it cross anyone's mind to change our tax system?
Nope. We just keep piling shit on shit, causing this jockeying.
Hate MS all you want, but what they're doing is nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29877903</id>
	<title>Re:They pay some</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256553540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in Alabama, we have State Income Tax + Municipal "Employment" Tax (1\% in most towns) + Sate Sales Tax (4\%) + County Income Tax (usually about 1\%) + City Income taxes (3-4\%).  You'd think there would not be a huge issue with funding our schools, but we're still doing 11\% proration.</p><p>The real issue is that the politicians got greedy (!!!) and changed the budget basis from prior year's revenue to the next year's "projected" revenue.  When things like massive economic downturn happen, they have already been spending based on some magic projected growth number, then have to shut half the states' programs down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Alabama , we have State Income Tax + Municipal " Employment " Tax ( 1 \ % in most towns ) + Sate Sales Tax ( 4 \ % ) + County Income Tax ( usually about 1 \ % ) + City Income taxes ( 3-4 \ % ) .
You 'd think there would not be a huge issue with funding our schools , but we 're still doing 11 \ % proration.The real issue is that the politicians got greedy ( ! ! !
) and changed the budget basis from prior year 's revenue to the next year 's " projected " revenue .
When things like massive economic downturn happen , they have already been spending based on some magic projected growth number , then have to shut half the states ' programs down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Alabama, we have State Income Tax + Municipal "Employment" Tax (1\% in most towns) + Sate Sales Tax (4\%) + County Income Tax (usually about 1\%) + City Income taxes (3-4\%).
You'd think there would not be a huge issue with funding our schools, but we're still doing 11\% proration.The real issue is that the politicians got greedy (!!!
) and changed the budget basis from prior year's revenue to the next year's "projected" revenue.
When things like massive economic downturn happen, they have already been spending based on some magic projected growth number, then have to shut half the states' programs down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875649</id>
	<title>Interesting microsoft goes crazy over piracy</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1256587260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>of it's software, but has no problem trying to not pay for taxes.  Seems if microsoft is leading by example then people should have no problem getting microsoft software for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>of it 's software , but has no problem trying to not pay for taxes .
Seems if microsoft is leading by example then people should have no problem getting microsoft software for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of it's software, but has no problem trying to not pay for taxes.
Seems if microsoft is leading by example then people should have no problem getting microsoft software for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875803</id>
	<title>Re:You've gotta love this entitlement mentality</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1256587920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proper venue in this case would seem to be a FEDERAL court, yes?</p><p>You know, the one presided over by a judge whose salary is funded by federal corporate income taxes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proper venue in this case would seem to be a FEDERAL court , yes ? You know , the one presided over by a judge whose salary is funded by federal corporate income taxes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proper venue in this case would seem to be a FEDERAL court, yes?You know, the one presided over by a judge whose salary is funded by federal corporate income taxes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871809</id>
	<title>Linux Users Freeloading Off Their Parents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256568960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Move out of the fucking basement and start paying rent, THEN you'll be permitted to bitch about Microsoft's freeloading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Move out of the fucking basement and start paying rent , THEN you 'll be permitted to bitch about Microsoft 's freeloading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Move out of the fucking basement and start paying rent, THEN you'll be permitted to bitch about Microsoft's freeloading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872851</id>
	<title>Re:They pay some</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6.5\%?!?!  Thats it? and no state income tax??  Can your state congresscritters tell our state congresscritters  how you manage that?  We have 7.75\% sales tax AND 7\% state income tax..  and the bastards still can't get the budget str8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6.5 \ % ? ! ? !
Thats it ?
and no state income tax ? ?
Can your state congresscritters tell our state congresscritters how you manage that ?
We have 7.75 \ % sales tax AND 7 \ % state income tax.. and the bastards still ca n't get the budget str8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6.5\%?!?!
Thats it?
and no state income tax??
Can your state congresscritters tell our state congresscritters  how you manage that?
We have 7.75\% sales tax AND 7\% state income tax..  and the bastards still can't get the budget str8.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871795</id>
	<title>Better than canada.</title>
	<author>yourassOA</author>
	<datestamp>1256568780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over half of what I earn goes to the government in taxes. Most of which get wasted so industry doesn't have to pay to expand their infastructure. OT but for example my power bill just went up to pay for new transmission lines to the states. But the people in the states can buy power produced an hr away from me for half the price I pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over half of what I earn goes to the government in taxes .
Most of which get wasted so industry does n't have to pay to expand their infastructure .
OT but for example my power bill just went up to pay for new transmission lines to the states .
But the people in the states can buy power produced an hr away from me for half the price I pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over half of what I earn goes to the government in taxes.
Most of which get wasted so industry doesn't have to pay to expand their infastructure.
OT but for example my power bill just went up to pay for new transmission lines to the states.
But the people in the states can buy power produced an hr away from me for half the price I pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871977</id>
	<title>Re:Buy your MS licenses in China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256569740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So then Microsoft would have no problem with me buying my MS licenses in China and using them in the US, right?</p><p>Yeah, riiiiiight.</p></div><p>Contract law and tax law strike me as very different kinds of things.  Microsoft is capitalizing on its (possible) freedoms afforded under tax law.  You're suggesting that the arguments carry over into contract law (and possibly copyright law).  I think you need to do more work to establish that that's reasonable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So then Microsoft would have no problem with me buying my MS licenses in China and using them in the US , right ? Yeah , riiiiiight.Contract law and tax law strike me as very different kinds of things .
Microsoft is capitalizing on its ( possible ) freedoms afforded under tax law .
You 're suggesting that the arguments carry over into contract law ( and possibly copyright law ) .
I think you need to do more work to establish that that 's reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then Microsoft would have no problem with me buying my MS licenses in China and using them in the US, right?Yeah, riiiiiight.Contract law and tax law strike me as very different kinds of things.
Microsoft is capitalizing on its (possible) freedoms afforded under tax law.
You're suggesting that the arguments carry over into contract law (and possibly copyright law).
I think you need to do more work to establish that that's reasonable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29883087</id>
	<title>Re:UK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256654580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why don't we do that here in the US? It seems like a fair standard to me.</p></div><p>Ah, there's where you go wrong. Fair has nothing to do with it. Being fair would impede on the ability of Microsoft (and lots of other companies doing the exact same thing) to maximize its profits. And we can't have that, can we? No, of course not. Business profits above everything else. Hail our corporate overlords.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we do that here in the US ?
It seems like a fair standard to me.Ah , there 's where you go wrong .
Fair has nothing to do with it .
Being fair would impede on the ability of Microsoft ( and lots of other companies doing the exact same thing ) to maximize its profits .
And we ca n't have that , can we ?
No , of course not .
Business profits above everything else .
Hail our corporate overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we do that here in the US?
It seems like a fair standard to me.Ah, there's where you go wrong.
Fair has nothing to do with it.
Being fair would impede on the ability of Microsoft (and lots of other companies doing the exact same thing) to maximize its profits.
And we can't have that, can we?
No, of course not.
Business profits above everything else.
Hail our corporate overlords.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872125</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29882241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29877903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29877821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29876079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29885169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29876951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29883087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29884449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_26_1215210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29884449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29883087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871899
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872443
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871993
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873383
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874155
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872407
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29882241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29877903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29877821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29876079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29875233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29871977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29874135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29873893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29876951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29885169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_26_1215210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_26_1215210.29872053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
