<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_25_0136238</id>
	<title>Senators Ask EC To Let Oracle-Sun Deal Go Through</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259154840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The European Union has managed to do something that US Presidents often find difficult: to make 59 US Senators from both sides of the aisle agree on something. A group led by John Kerry (D) and Orrin Hatch (R) has sent a letter to the European Union, asking it to <a href="http://www.internetnews.com/government/article.php/3849916/US+Senators+Press+EU+to+End+OracleSun+Probe.htm">wrap up the investigation of the Oracle-Sun merger</a> and let the deal go through. Interestingly, the letter emphasizes the damage the delay and uncertainty are doing to Sun."</i> The article paraphrases a Gartner analyst, who points out that the Senators' letter "comes from a US point of view and doesn't take into account how the EU operates."</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The European Union has managed to do something that US Presidents often find difficult : to make 59 US Senators from both sides of the aisle agree on something .
A group led by John Kerry ( D ) and Orrin Hatch ( R ) has sent a letter to the European Union , asking it to wrap up the investigation of the Oracle-Sun merger and let the deal go through .
Interestingly , the letter emphasizes the damage the delay and uncertainty are doing to Sun .
" The article paraphrases a Gartner analyst , who points out that the Senators ' letter " comes from a US point of view and does n't take into account how the EU operates .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The European Union has managed to do something that US Presidents often find difficult: to make 59 US Senators from both sides of the aisle agree on something.
A group led by John Kerry (D) and Orrin Hatch (R) has sent a letter to the European Union, asking it to wrap up the investigation of the Oracle-Sun merger and let the deal go through.
Interestingly, the letter emphasizes the damage the delay and uncertainty are doing to Sun.
" The article paraphrases a Gartner analyst, who points out that the Senators' letter "comes from a US point of view and doesn't take into account how the EU operates.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226144</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1257178500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm talking about the "The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers" part of the quote. He's saying the EU is "completely different" from the DoJ and the DoJ would never do this (being concerned about keeping the market full of lots of small competitors), thus implying that he thinks that a lack of competition is not harmful to consumers. Or perhaps he was just very bad with words and meant to say that the DoJ only deals with stuff it <i>thinks</i> harms consumers (not that objectively harms consumers), and thus is hilariously incompetent and overlooks concerns like this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm talking about the " The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers " part of the quote .
He 's saying the EU is " completely different " from the DoJ and the DoJ would never do this ( being concerned about keeping the market full of lots of small competitors ) , thus implying that he thinks that a lack of competition is not harmful to consumers .
Or perhaps he was just very bad with words and meant to say that the DoJ only deals with stuff it thinks harms consumers ( not that objectively harms consumers ) , and thus is hilariously incompetent and overlooks concerns like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm talking about the "The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers" part of the quote.
He's saying the EU is "completely different" from the DoJ and the DoJ would never do this (being concerned about keeping the market full of lots of small competitors), thus implying that he thinks that a lack of competition is not harmful to consumers.
Or perhaps he was just very bad with words and meant to say that the DoJ only deals with stuff it thinks harms consumers (not that objectively harms consumers), and thus is hilariously incompetent and overlooks concerns like this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229320</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not feasible. There's no way Oracle, a company that sells to multibillion dollar multinationals, would be ABLE to avoid Europe. It's just not possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not feasible .
There 's no way Oracle , a company that sells to multibillion dollar multinationals , would be ABLE to avoid Europe .
It 's just not possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not feasible.
There's no way Oracle, a company that sells to multibillion dollar multinationals, would be ABLE to avoid Europe.
It's just not possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225114</id>
	<title>As a European, let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>Noryungi</author>
	<datestamp>1257171900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, what the heck <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs" title="youtube.com">they said it much better than I ever would</a> [youtube.com]. The fake French accent only adds to the hilarity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , what the heck they said it much better than I ever would [ youtube.com ] .
The fake French accent only adds to the hilarity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, what the heck they said it much better than I ever would [youtube.com].
The fake French accent only adds to the hilarity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229008</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>angel'o'sphere</author>
	<datestamp>1257191760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>I think it is more like the EU would prefer a few large European companies and smaller non-European competitors. If this was SAP buying Sun, it would have been approved months ago.<br></i></p><p>Bu you <b>do know</b> that the law in europe is for everyone the same? We have no money aristocraty e.g.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if SAP would buy Sun teh concerns would even be much higher and the decision would probably already be made.</p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is more like the EU would prefer a few large European companies and smaller non-European competitors .
If this was SAP buying Sun , it would have been approved months ago.Bu you do know that the law in europe is for everyone the same ?
We have no money aristocraty e.g .
... if SAP would buy Sun teh concerns would even be much higher and the decision would probably already be made.angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is more like the EU would prefer a few large European companies and smaller non-European competitors.
If this was SAP buying Sun, it would have been approved months ago.Bu you do know that the law in europe is for everyone the same?
We have no money aristocraty e.g.
... if SAP would buy Sun teh concerns would even be much higher and the decision would probably already be made.angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225576</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>sim82</author>
	<datestamp>1257175200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The EC has to stop interfering in things it does not understand.</p><p>First the ridiculous Microsoft case, and now this?</p></div><p>The easiest way to stop the EC from interfering is by not selling your products on the European market.
<br>
Use our market, obey our rules. Simply put. (It's a bit like the old American saying about 'eating cakes'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EC has to stop interfering in things it does not understand.First the ridiculous Microsoft case , and now this ? The easiest way to stop the EC from interfering is by not selling your products on the European market .
Use our market , obey our rules .
Simply put .
( It 's a bit like the old American saying about 'eating cakes ' ... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EC has to stop interfering in things it does not understand.First the ridiculous Microsoft case, and now this?The easiest way to stop the EC from interfering is by not selling your products on the European market.
Use our market, obey our rules.
Simply put.
(It's a bit like the old American saying about 'eating cakes' ...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225918</id>
	<title>Re:No legitimate concerns</title>
	<author>Matje</author>
	<datestamp>1257177300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think one concern is that allowing Oracle to control MySql is in a way asking the fox to guard the henhouse. If the solution is to wait for a fork of MySql, then you might as well force Oracle to divest MySql directly. Else you've effectively allowed Oracle to kill of the MySql brand.</p><p>Another thing is that Oracle formally announced the merger two weaks earlier in the US than in Europe, effectively making sure that the US authorities would be first to publish their verdict. As I read it in the newspaper, that is not the normal procedure and it may have irritated the European Commisioner. Mrs Kroes has a reputation for toughness so the current powerplay will like do little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think one concern is that allowing Oracle to control MySql is in a way asking the fox to guard the henhouse .
If the solution is to wait for a fork of MySql , then you might as well force Oracle to divest MySql directly .
Else you 've effectively allowed Oracle to kill of the MySql brand.Another thing is that Oracle formally announced the merger two weaks earlier in the US than in Europe , effectively making sure that the US authorities would be first to publish their verdict .
As I read it in the newspaper , that is not the normal procedure and it may have irritated the European Commisioner .
Mrs Kroes has a reputation for toughness so the current powerplay will like do little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think one concern is that allowing Oracle to control MySql is in a way asking the fox to guard the henhouse.
If the solution is to wait for a fork of MySql, then you might as well force Oracle to divest MySql directly.
Else you've effectively allowed Oracle to kill of the MySql brand.Another thing is that Oracle formally announced the merger two weaks earlier in the US than in Europe, effectively making sure that the US authorities would be first to publish their verdict.
As I read it in the newspaper, that is not the normal procedure and it may have irritated the European Commisioner.
Mrs Kroes has a reputation for toughness so the current powerplay will like do little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227400</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if the deal does not go through, or if it never happened, it's simplistic to think that sun would just &quot;go away&quot;. sun software as a whole is flourishing. the losing aspect is sun hardware.</p><p>a more likely scenario is that parts of sun would emerge from bankruptcy and move forward with their profitable ways. or better yet, mr. poneytail acts proactively to re-organize sun into a profitable formation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if the deal does not go through , or if it never happened , it 's simplistic to think that sun would just " go away " .
sun software as a whole is flourishing .
the losing aspect is sun hardware.a more likely scenario is that parts of sun would emerge from bankruptcy and move forward with their profitable ways .
or better yet , mr. poneytail acts proactively to re-organize sun into a profitable formation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the deal does not go through, or if it never happened, it's simplistic to think that sun would just "go away".
sun software as a whole is flourishing.
the losing aspect is sun hardware.a more likely scenario is that parts of sun would emerge from bankruptcy and move forward with their profitable ways.
or better yet, mr. poneytail acts proactively to re-organize sun into a profitable formation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225566</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>HanzoSpam</author>
	<datestamp>1257175140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's wrong with encouraging fewer monolith corporations and more small competitors?  However, I don't see how that philosophy plays into the Sun/Oracle situation.  Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.</p></div><p>Indeed. You would think the choice was between an independent Sun and an Oracle owned Sun. Actually, it's between an Oracle owned Sun, and no Sun at all.</p><p>In my book, that one should be a no-brainer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with encouraging fewer monolith corporations and more small competitors ?
However , I do n't see how that philosophy plays into the Sun/Oracle situation .
Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.Indeed .
You would think the choice was between an independent Sun and an Oracle owned Sun .
Actually , it 's between an Oracle owned Sun , and no Sun at all.In my book , that one should be a no-brainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with encouraging fewer monolith corporations and more small competitors?
However, I don't see how that philosophy plays into the Sun/Oracle situation.
Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.Indeed.
You would think the choice was between an independent Sun and an Oracle owned Sun.
Actually, it's between an Oracle owned Sun, and no Sun at all.In my book, that one should be a no-brainer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225648</id>
	<title>US Constitution Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A US president has never convinced 59 US senators for one very obvious reason</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A US president has never convinced 59 US senators for one very obvious reason</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A US president has never convinced 59 US senators for one very obvious reason</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30255102</id>
	<title>Re:Enough already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The EC has to stop interfering in things it does not understand.</p></div><p>No it doesn't. Companies that do business in the EU have to obey the rules there or leave the largest market in the world. That's not a tough choice even if companies sometimes cry over it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EC has to stop interfering in things it does not understand.No it does n't .
Companies that do business in the EU have to obey the rules there or leave the largest market in the world .
That 's not a tough choice even if companies sometimes cry over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EC has to stop interfering in things it does not understand.No it doesn't.
Companies that do business in the EU have to obey the rules there or leave the largest market in the world.
That's not a tough choice even if companies sometimes cry over it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30236080</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259242920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;They are probably very concerned that MySQL will be wound up by Oracle who see it as undercutting there flagship database product. This will contribute &gt;heavily to European unemployment instead.</p><p>Sorry mate, you don't know what you are talking about. The MySQL workforce is distributed worldwide, with a majority of employees coming from the USA and Europe (not just EU), so unemployment would affect both sides equality.</p><p>&gt; an obvious way to cut SUN's overheads since the majority of the development is community lead anyway.</p><p>Not true! Most of the code is written by MySQL (now SUN) employees. External contributions exist but are minimal (I would estimate less than 10\% code base).</p><p>As for Oracle, I don't believe then want to kill MySQL or they would have killed Innobase a long time ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They are probably very concerned that MySQL will be wound up by Oracle who see it as undercutting there flagship database product .
This will contribute &gt; heavily to European unemployment instead.Sorry mate , you do n't know what you are talking about .
The MySQL workforce is distributed worldwide , with a majority of employees coming from the USA and Europe ( not just EU ) , so unemployment would affect both sides equality. &gt; an obvious way to cut SUN 's overheads since the majority of the development is community lead anyway.Not true !
Most of the code is written by MySQL ( now SUN ) employees .
External contributions exist but are minimal ( I would estimate less than 10 \ % code base ) .As for Oracle , I do n't believe then want to kill MySQL or they would have killed Innobase a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;They are probably very concerned that MySQL will be wound up by Oracle who see it as undercutting there flagship database product.
This will contribute &gt;heavily to European unemployment instead.Sorry mate, you don't know what you are talking about.
The MySQL workforce is distributed worldwide, with a majority of employees coming from the USA and Europe (not just EU), so unemployment would affect both sides equality.&gt; an obvious way to cut SUN's overheads since the majority of the development is community lead anyway.Not true!
Most of the code is written by MySQL (now SUN) employees.
External contributions exist but are minimal (I would estimate less than 10\% code base).As for Oracle, I don't believe then want to kill MySQL or they would have killed Innobase a long time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229394</id>
	<title>The EU better not fuck this up</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1257193500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously letting a company die off because it means Oracle will have access to a database that everyone has access to thanks to it being open source is just beyond fucking ignorant.
<br> <br>
Perhaps this is a long overdue payback to IBM for helping the Nazis</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously letting a company die off because it means Oracle will have access to a database that everyone has access to thanks to it being open source is just beyond fucking ignorant .
Perhaps this is a long overdue payback to IBM for helping the Nazis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously letting a company die off because it means Oracle will have access to a database that everyone has access to thanks to it being open source is just beyond fucking ignorant.
Perhaps this is a long overdue payback to IBM for helping the Nazis</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225062</id>
	<title>Do they own Sun shares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they happen to own shares in Sun by any chance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they happen to own shares in Sun by any chance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they happen to own shares in Sun by any chance?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226078</id>
	<title>It's really hard to judge this one ...</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1257178140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because there are tons of vested interests.  SAP is based in the EU, so there's the possibility they're lobbying the EC on this one.  One assumes that Oracle / Sun are lobbying US senators (and politicians in the EU for that matter?).  The EU, as the article points out, works under different rules and with a different viewpoint - Oracle and Sun agreed to be bound by local laws when they entered the European markets.  The EU probably has a political interest in seeming to stand up to the US, though you'd hope the regulators wouldn't be swayed into unprofessional behaviour by that.  The US has an interest in avoiding a precedent where the EU has power over one of their companies.  Sun and Oracle are probably trying to dodge awkward questions and hope for the EU to cave.  Really, there's no reason to believe 100\% that anyone is acting entirely in good faith here, especially given we don't have access to all the information.</p><p>We're seeing an interesting consequence of the increasingly interconnected world, though, in that we're reaping business advantages from setting up shop in multiple large markets but in turn companies are then subject to multiple jurisdictions regardless of their country of origin.  It seems like the EU and US regulators working together on a decision might be more appropriate, given neither of them has absolute authority to give the go ahead.  A co-operative solution to regulation decisions would make a certain amount of sense since it's de facto what we have now.  It's surely in nobody's interests for the decision to be left hanging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there are tons of vested interests .
SAP is based in the EU , so there 's the possibility they 're lobbying the EC on this one .
One assumes that Oracle / Sun are lobbying US senators ( and politicians in the EU for that matter ? ) .
The EU , as the article points out , works under different rules and with a different viewpoint - Oracle and Sun agreed to be bound by local laws when they entered the European markets .
The EU probably has a political interest in seeming to stand up to the US , though you 'd hope the regulators would n't be swayed into unprofessional behaviour by that .
The US has an interest in avoiding a precedent where the EU has power over one of their companies .
Sun and Oracle are probably trying to dodge awkward questions and hope for the EU to cave .
Really , there 's no reason to believe 100 \ % that anyone is acting entirely in good faith here , especially given we do n't have access to all the information.We 're seeing an interesting consequence of the increasingly interconnected world , though , in that we 're reaping business advantages from setting up shop in multiple large markets but in turn companies are then subject to multiple jurisdictions regardless of their country of origin .
It seems like the EU and US regulators working together on a decision might be more appropriate , given neither of them has absolute authority to give the go ahead .
A co-operative solution to regulation decisions would make a certain amount of sense since it 's de facto what we have now .
It 's surely in nobody 's interests for the decision to be left hanging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there are tons of vested interests.
SAP is based in the EU, so there's the possibility they're lobbying the EC on this one.
One assumes that Oracle / Sun are lobbying US senators (and politicians in the EU for that matter?).
The EU, as the article points out, works under different rules and with a different viewpoint - Oracle and Sun agreed to be bound by local laws when they entered the European markets.
The EU probably has a political interest in seeming to stand up to the US, though you'd hope the regulators wouldn't be swayed into unprofessional behaviour by that.
The US has an interest in avoiding a precedent where the EU has power over one of their companies.
Sun and Oracle are probably trying to dodge awkward questions and hope for the EU to cave.
Really, there's no reason to believe 100\% that anyone is acting entirely in good faith here, especially given we don't have access to all the information.We're seeing an interesting consequence of the increasingly interconnected world, though, in that we're reaping business advantages from setting up shop in multiple large markets but in turn companies are then subject to multiple jurisdictions regardless of their country of origin.
It seems like the EU and US regulators working together on a decision might be more appropriate, given neither of them has absolute authority to give the go ahead.
A co-operative solution to regulation decisions would make a certain amount of sense since it's de facto what we have now.
It's surely in nobody's interests for the decision to be left hanging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225198</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That quote is rather bizarre. It seems to be implying that having a market utterly dominated by a few large companies instead of being composed of many smaller, less individually influential ones <i>isn't</i> harmful to consumers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That quote is rather bizarre .
It seems to be implying that having a market utterly dominated by a few large companies instead of being composed of many smaller , less individually influential ones is n't harmful to consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That quote is rather bizarre.
It seems to be implying that having a market utterly dominated by a few large companies instead of being composed of many smaller, less individually influential ones isn't harmful to consumers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225210</id>
	<title>EU has a limited view on data store competition</title>
	<author>olivierva</author>
	<datestamp>1257172860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IMHO the EU has a fairly limited view on data storage, the biggest challenge Oracle will face in the next 10 years is answering the question: why do we need a relational database to store our data?  I find developing with Java / Hibernate against a relational database very time consuming and was it not that I invested so much time and effort in learning these technologies I would drop them straight away and explore alternatives. The fact that Oracle will add another SQL database to their product range doesn't change this fact that much at all. What I'm trying to say here is that the European Commission doesn't seem to understand that the competition will come from a completely different direction. And keeping the different database brands separate doesn't matter that much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO the EU has a fairly limited view on data storage , the biggest challenge Oracle will face in the next 10 years is answering the question : why do we need a relational database to store our data ?
I find developing with Java / Hibernate against a relational database very time consuming and was it not that I invested so much time and effort in learning these technologies I would drop them straight away and explore alternatives .
The fact that Oracle will add another SQL database to their product range does n't change this fact that much at all .
What I 'm trying to say here is that the European Commission does n't seem to understand that the competition will come from a completely different direction .
And keeping the different database brands separate does n't matter that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO the EU has a fairly limited view on data storage, the biggest challenge Oracle will face in the next 10 years is answering the question: why do we need a relational database to store our data?
I find developing with Java / Hibernate against a relational database very time consuming and was it not that I invested so much time and effort in learning these technologies I would drop them straight away and explore alternatives.
The fact that Oracle will add another SQL database to their product range doesn't change this fact that much at all.
What I'm trying to say here is that the European Commission doesn't seem to understand that the competition will come from a completely different direction.
And keeping the different database brands separate doesn't matter that much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226840</id>
	<title>EU ruined my life...</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1257181800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The EU is the reason I never bothered to code an SQL server or found a multinational hardware company from scratch. Mine would've been the coolest too, were it not for the EU. Stupid EU! Ruined my life....</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU is the reason I never bothered to code an SQL server or found a multinational hardware company from scratch .
Mine would 've been the coolest too , were it not for the EU .
Stupid EU !
Ruined my life... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU is the reason I never bothered to code an SQL server or found a multinational hardware company from scratch.
Mine would've been the coolest too, were it not for the EU.
Stupid EU!
Ruined my life....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225860</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1257177060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the interesting fallout of this is that large corporations may find that it is too risky to operate as a large <em>multinational</em> corporation.  The regulatory environments are too different.  That's an interesting (and perhaps welcome) check on the size of a corporation, at least with the variety that operate both in the US and Europe.
<br> <br>
OTOH, what with the distinction being less clear between private and public money in Europe, I can't help wonder if the EU isn't just protecting its own corporate interests.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the interesting fallout of this is that large corporations may find that it is too risky to operate as a large multinational corporation .
The regulatory environments are too different .
That 's an interesting ( and perhaps welcome ) check on the size of a corporation , at least with the variety that operate both in the US and Europe .
OTOH , what with the distinction being less clear between private and public money in Europe , I ca n't help wonder if the EU is n't just protecting its own corporate interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the interesting fallout of this is that large corporations may find that it is too risky to operate as a large multinational corporation.
The regulatory environments are too different.
That's an interesting (and perhaps welcome) check on the size of a corporation, at least with the variety that operate both in the US and Europe.
OTOH, what with the distinction being less clear between private and public money in Europe, I can't help wonder if the EU isn't just protecting its own corporate interests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225150</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was interested by that part of the article as well.  What's wrong with encouraging fewer monolith corporations and more small competitors?  However, I don't see how that philosophy plays into the Sun/Oracle situation.  Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was interested by that part of the article as well .
What 's wrong with encouraging fewer monolith corporations and more small competitors ?
However , I do n't see how that philosophy plays into the Sun/Oracle situation .
Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was interested by that part of the article as well.
What's wrong with encouraging fewer monolith corporations and more small competitors?
However, I don't see how that philosophy plays into the Sun/Oracle situation.
Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225322</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From TFA:</p><p>"The DoJ runs on completely different competition rules than the EU," he said. "The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers. Their decision is businesses can look after themselves. The EU is more likely to be protective of competitors. They believe trade is better with more small competitors."</p><p>I am glad I am not the only one believing that...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)))</p></div><p>Yes, I'm sure SAP agrees with you.</p><p>This is nothing more than the EU protecting a European company from stiffer competition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " The DoJ runs on completely different competition rules than the EU , " he said .
" The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers .
Their decision is businesses can look after themselves .
The EU is more likely to be protective of competitors .
They believe trade is better with more small competitors .
" I am glad I am not the only one believing that... ; - ) ) ) Yes , I 'm sure SAP agrees with you.This is nothing more than the EU protecting a European company from stiffer competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:"The DoJ runs on completely different competition rules than the EU," he said.
"The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers.
Their decision is businesses can look after themselves.
The EU is more likely to be protective of competitors.
They believe trade is better with more small competitors.
"I am glad I am not the only one believing that... ;-)))Yes, I'm sure SAP agrees with you.This is nothing more than the EU protecting a European company from stiffer competition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225268</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.</p></div><p>Only if you believe that a company the size of Sun can disappear in a puff of smoke.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Sure, Sun would probably go bancrupt. The profitable parts (and some non-profitable, but believed to be profitable or able to be made profitable) would be sold off. A bunch of employees would start their own "Sun 2". Consulting firms would step in to take over maintainance contracts.</p><p>Interesting stuff happens when the old dog leaves the barn, you know?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.Only if you believe that a company the size of Sun can disappear in a puff of smoke .
: - ) Sure , Sun would probably go bancrupt .
The profitable parts ( and some non-profitable , but believed to be profitable or able to be made profitable ) would be sold off .
A bunch of employees would start their own " Sun 2 " .
Consulting firms would step in to take over maintainance contracts.Interesting stuff happens when the old dog leaves the barn , you know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.Only if you believe that a company the size of Sun can disappear in a puff of smoke.
:-)Sure, Sun would probably go bancrupt.
The profitable parts (and some non-profitable, but believed to be profitable or able to be made profitable) would be sold off.
A bunch of employees would start their own "Sun 2".
Consulting firms would step in to take over maintainance contracts.Interesting stuff happens when the old dog leaves the barn, you know?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225618</id>
	<title>Re:Your lobbyists at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The recession must be hitting Larry if he can only afford 59 senators<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The recession must be hitting Larry if he can only afford 59 senators .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The recession must be hitting Larry if he can only afford 59 senators ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225294</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>skoaldipper</author>
	<datestamp>1257173400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Peel the layers off the orange. Sun owns MySQL. Oracle wants to own Sun.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:. Oracle owns Sun owns MySQL.</p><p>We can argue the merits, both pro and con, for that inheritance of ownership upon MySQL's future, but I think in the end, the EU should take its time in understanding Mega King Kong Industry like acquisitions and their effect upon creative open source market influences and alternatives.</p><p>The one thing this filthy American pig can appreciate, as I stare at my AT&amp;T bill and ponder how humpty dumpty Ma Bell was put back together again, and why I still can't get FiOS, is that the EU tells King Kong NIMBY - to the benefit of emerging open source service markets there. Besides, Kerry, Hatch, Feinstein, and Boxer are probably the worst consultants we have on American Industry health. If those 4 alone are for it, I say let this merger die a quick and merciful death. Instinct alone from these 4's track record tells me both sides of the pond will be the better for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peel the layers off the orange .
Sun owns MySQL .
Oracle wants to own Sun .
: . Oracle owns Sun owns MySQL.We can argue the merits , both pro and con , for that inheritance of ownership upon MySQL 's future , but I think in the end , the EU should take its time in understanding Mega King Kong Industry like acquisitions and their effect upon creative open source market influences and alternatives.The one thing this filthy American pig can appreciate , as I stare at my AT&amp;T bill and ponder how humpty dumpty Ma Bell was put back together again , and why I still ca n't get FiOS , is that the EU tells King Kong NIMBY - to the benefit of emerging open source service markets there .
Besides , Kerry , Hatch , Feinstein , and Boxer are probably the worst consultants we have on American Industry health .
If those 4 alone are for it , I say let this merger die a quick and merciful death .
Instinct alone from these 4 's track record tells me both sides of the pond will be the better for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peel the layers off the orange.
Sun owns MySQL.
Oracle wants to own Sun.
:. Oracle owns Sun owns MySQL.We can argue the merits, both pro and con, for that inheritance of ownership upon MySQL's future, but I think in the end, the EU should take its time in understanding Mega King Kong Industry like acquisitions and their effect upon creative open source market influences and alternatives.The one thing this filthy American pig can appreciate, as I stare at my AT&amp;T bill and ponder how humpty dumpty Ma Bell was put back together again, and why I still can't get FiOS, is that the EU tells King Kong NIMBY - to the benefit of emerging open source service markets there.
Besides, Kerry, Hatch, Feinstein, and Boxer are probably the worst consultants we have on American Industry health.
If those 4 alone are for it, I say let this merger die a quick and merciful death.
Instinct alone from these 4's track record tells me both sides of the pond will be the better for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225102</id>
	<title>SAP vs Oracle</title>
	<author>argoth</author>
	<datestamp>1257171840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SAP 1 Oracle 0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SAP 1 Oracle 0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SAP 1 Oracle 0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225192</id>
	<title>When Sun runs out of money, layoff Euro workers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU is asking Oracle to prove a negative.</p><p>They're just fucking with the evil US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU is asking Oracle to prove a negative.They 're just fucking with the evil US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU is asking Oracle to prove a negative.They're just fucking with the evil US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226446</id>
	<title>"asking it to"?</title>
	<author>Corson</author>
	<datestamp>1257179940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's interesting... I wonder how the US would comply should a couple EU politicians send a letter "asking it to" wrap something up in its favour.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's interesting... I wonder how the US would comply should a couple EU politicians send a letter " asking it to " wrap something up in its favour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's interesting... I wonder how the US would comply should a couple EU politicians send a letter "asking it to" wrap something up in its favour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30230930</id>
	<title>Visa Versa?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257158880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you imagine the shit storm if European politicians told the American government how to do business. The average American poster would be so butthurt that someone would dare comment on their perfect world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine the shit storm if European politicians told the American government how to do business .
The average American poster would be so butthurt that someone would dare comment on their perfect world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine the shit storm if European politicians told the American government how to do business.
The average American poster would be so butthurt that someone would dare comment on their perfect world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227162</id>
	<title>Re:If I were Sun-Oracle</title>
	<author>sticky\_charris</author>
	<datestamp>1257183300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The EU has a larger economy than the US, and therefore it is not an amount of business that you would want to play games with.<br> <br>

All companies, public or otherwise follow a set of rules and standards when they do business in any country or state.  Is this news to you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU has a larger economy than the US , and therefore it is not an amount of business that you would want to play games with .
All companies , public or otherwise follow a set of rules and standards when they do business in any country or state .
Is this news to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU has a larger economy than the US, and therefore it is not an amount of business that you would want to play games with.
All companies, public or otherwise follow a set of rules and standards when they do business in any country or state.
Is this news to you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227116</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1257183060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is an observation you generally make. In the United States antitrust policy is not taken serious by business and institutions seem to get bullied. That is not the way you are expected to deal with a European competition regulator.</p><p>In particular you don't question the basics of competition law when they caught you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is an observation you generally make .
In the United States antitrust policy is not taken serious by business and institutions seem to get bullied .
That is not the way you are expected to deal with a European competition regulator.In particular you do n't question the basics of competition law when they caught you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is an observation you generally make.
In the United States antitrust policy is not taken serious by business and institutions seem to get bullied.
That is not the way you are expected to deal with a European competition regulator.In particular you don't question the basics of competition law when they caught you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227524</id>
	<title>Mysql needs to spin off</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1257185280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have no reason to own or support it except to kill it.  This is exactly why the EU is blocking the deal, it makes sense to stop Oracle's purchase of Sun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have no reason to own or support it except to kill it .
This is exactly why the EU is blocking the deal , it makes sense to stop Oracle 's purchase of Sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have no reason to own or support it except to kill it.
This is exactly why the EU is blocking the deal, it makes sense to stop Oracle's purchase of Sun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30231288</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1257161520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> They are now questioning (with good reason) whether the number of major players in the Database market should be reduced as Oracle gain even more dominance. </p></div><p>Actually it turns out the complainants claiming that MySQL must be protected are Microsoft, who would love to see both Sun and MySQL die, and SAP, who just want anything that will hurt a competitor.  Neither of them know or care that we're talking about:</p><ul>
<li>free software, which can and has been forked, and</li>
<li>a company who bought a supposed competitor, InnoDB, and invested money improving it.</li></ul><p>I think they're just astroturfing the EC for their own benefit.

</p><p>--dave (I'm biased: I want the deal to go through so I can get some more capacity planning gigs) c-b</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are now questioning ( with good reason ) whether the number of major players in the Database market should be reduced as Oracle gain even more dominance .
Actually it turns out the complainants claiming that MySQL must be protected are Microsoft , who would love to see both Sun and MySQL die , and SAP , who just want anything that will hurt a competitor .
Neither of them know or care that we 're talking about : free software , which can and has been forked , and a company who bought a supposed competitor , InnoDB , and invested money improving it.I think they 're just astroturfing the EC for their own benefit .
--dave ( I 'm biased : I want the deal to go through so I can get some more capacity planning gigs ) c-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They are now questioning (with good reason) whether the number of major players in the Database market should be reduced as Oracle gain even more dominance.
Actually it turns out the complainants claiming that MySQL must be protected are Microsoft, who would love to see both Sun and MySQL die, and SAP, who just want anything that will hurt a competitor.
Neither of them know or care that we're talking about:
free software, which can and has been forked, and
a company who bought a supposed competitor, InnoDB, and invested money improving it.I think they're just astroturfing the EC for their own benefit.
--dave (I'm biased: I want the deal to go through so I can get some more capacity planning gigs) c-b
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229978</id>
	<title>This is good for many</title>
	<author>mandelbr0t</author>
	<datestamp>1257153180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know too many of the details here, but I'm glad someone is buying Sun. I'd heard rumors of a Sun/IBM merger a while back, and seen the signs that Sun was struggling financially. I think that an Oracle/Sun merger creates a better balance of power in the IT industry. Sun has done many good things for the Open Source community, including StarOffice, a truly open sourced Java, and OpenSolaris. However, unlike IBM who has prospered despite their many public contributions, Sun has suffered lately. There's a growing trend away from Java and toward<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, as well as replacing old Unix servers running Solaris with new Intel machines running Windows Server.</p><p>Oracle throwing it's weight behind Sun technologies will reverse the trend, making Java applications popular again. I think Java is the superior solution. Not only available long before<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, it was ripped off poorly by Microsoft (as usual) and marketing took care of the idiots making the decisions. It won't be long before Oracle creates a WebForms application based on the J2EE framework. Unlike<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, however, the generated code can be hand-crafted to communicate with those old Unix boxes that won't be/haven't yet been replaced. J2EE is the superior web framework because its design incorporates a heterogeneous network, whereas Microsoft technologies are a monolith where you are unable to replace any one piece because Microsoft won't support other technologies.</p><p>Since many companies haven't yet transitioned to the really expensive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET technologies, this merger will prevent many more idiots from choosing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET just because it's sexy. I'd say now that you can't really go wrong buying IBM, Sun and Oracle in whatever quantities suits your organization. Just stay away from that Microsoft shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know too many of the details here , but I 'm glad someone is buying Sun .
I 'd heard rumors of a Sun/IBM merger a while back , and seen the signs that Sun was struggling financially .
I think that an Oracle/Sun merger creates a better balance of power in the IT industry .
Sun has done many good things for the Open Source community , including StarOffice , a truly open sourced Java , and OpenSolaris .
However , unlike IBM who has prospered despite their many public contributions , Sun has suffered lately .
There 's a growing trend away from Java and toward .NET , as well as replacing old Unix servers running Solaris with new Intel machines running Windows Server.Oracle throwing it 's weight behind Sun technologies will reverse the trend , making Java applications popular again .
I think Java is the superior solution .
Not only available long before .NET , it was ripped off poorly by Microsoft ( as usual ) and marketing took care of the idiots making the decisions .
It wo n't be long before Oracle creates a WebForms application based on the J2EE framework .
Unlike .NET , however , the generated code can be hand-crafted to communicate with those old Unix boxes that wo n't be/have n't yet been replaced .
J2EE is the superior web framework because its design incorporates a heterogeneous network , whereas Microsoft technologies are a monolith where you are unable to replace any one piece because Microsoft wo n't support other technologies.Since many companies have n't yet transitioned to the really expensive .NET technologies , this merger will prevent many more idiots from choosing .NET just because it 's sexy .
I 'd say now that you ca n't really go wrong buying IBM , Sun and Oracle in whatever quantities suits your organization .
Just stay away from that Microsoft shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know too many of the details here, but I'm glad someone is buying Sun.
I'd heard rumors of a Sun/IBM merger a while back, and seen the signs that Sun was struggling financially.
I think that an Oracle/Sun merger creates a better balance of power in the IT industry.
Sun has done many good things for the Open Source community, including StarOffice, a truly open sourced Java, and OpenSolaris.
However, unlike IBM who has prospered despite their many public contributions, Sun has suffered lately.
There's a growing trend away from Java and toward .NET, as well as replacing old Unix servers running Solaris with new Intel machines running Windows Server.Oracle throwing it's weight behind Sun technologies will reverse the trend, making Java applications popular again.
I think Java is the superior solution.
Not only available long before .NET, it was ripped off poorly by Microsoft (as usual) and marketing took care of the idiots making the decisions.
It won't be long before Oracle creates a WebForms application based on the J2EE framework.
Unlike .NET, however, the generated code can be hand-crafted to communicate with those old Unix boxes that won't be/haven't yet been replaced.
J2EE is the superior web framework because its design incorporates a heterogeneous network, whereas Microsoft technologies are a monolith where you are unable to replace any one piece because Microsoft won't support other technologies.Since many companies haven't yet transitioned to the really expensive .NET technologies, this merger will prevent many more idiots from choosing .NET just because it's sexy.
I'd say now that you can't really go wrong buying IBM, Sun and Oracle in whatever quantities suits your organization.
Just stay away from that Microsoft shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225484</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The European Commission is not a democratically elected body and has time and again shown itself to be very open to favoring business interests over consumer protection. The EU Commission will also outmaneuver the European Parliament in the matter of giving access to all inter-bank financial transactions in the EU (the SWIFT network has bowed to public pressure and removed its servers from US soil, where US intelligence could get access to this data under US law. The public and the EU parliament, an elected body of the EU, are in harsh opposition to a treaty which would (will) reestablish US access to the financial transaction data, but the EU Commission will not respect that at all. The EU commission is exactly who you want to be talking to when you need to do something against the will of the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The European Commission is not a democratically elected body and has time and again shown itself to be very open to favoring business interests over consumer protection .
The EU Commission will also outmaneuver the European Parliament in the matter of giving access to all inter-bank financial transactions in the EU ( the SWIFT network has bowed to public pressure and removed its servers from US soil , where US intelligence could get access to this data under US law .
The public and the EU parliament , an elected body of the EU , are in harsh opposition to a treaty which would ( will ) reestablish US access to the financial transaction data , but the EU Commission will not respect that at all .
The EU commission is exactly who you want to be talking to when you need to do something against the will of the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The European Commission is not a democratically elected body and has time and again shown itself to be very open to favoring business interests over consumer protection.
The EU Commission will also outmaneuver the European Parliament in the matter of giving access to all inter-bank financial transactions in the EU (the SWIFT network has bowed to public pressure and removed its servers from US soil, where US intelligence could get access to this data under US law.
The public and the EU parliament, an elected body of the EU, are in harsh opposition to a treaty which would (will) reestablish US access to the financial transaction data, but the EU Commission will not respect that at all.
The EU commission is exactly who you want to be talking to when you need to do something against the will of the public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227800</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>angel'o'sphere</author>
	<datestamp>1257186420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The DoJ runs on completely different competition rules than the EU," he said. "The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers. Their decision is businesses can look after themselves. The EU is more likely to be protective of competitors. They believe trade is better with more small competitors."</p><p>And what exactly is the difference between those two "approaches"? As a citizen of the EU and germany I never have heared about this standpoint anyway. The point is to prevent a monopoly. Wether you look at that from the standpoint if a customer or from a "competitor" of that monopoly does not matter, it is just the same problem.</p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The DoJ runs on completely different competition rules than the EU , " he said .
" The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers .
Their decision is businesses can look after themselves .
The EU is more likely to be protective of competitors .
They believe trade is better with more small competitors .
" And what exactly is the difference between those two " approaches " ?
As a citizen of the EU and germany I never have heared about this standpoint anyway .
The point is to prevent a monopoly .
Wether you look at that from the standpoint if a customer or from a " competitor " of that monopoly does not matter , it is just the same problem.angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The DoJ runs on completely different competition rules than the EU," he said.
"The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers.
Their decision is businesses can look after themselves.
The EU is more likely to be protective of competitors.
They believe trade is better with more small competitors.
"And what exactly is the difference between those two "approaches"?
As a citizen of the EU and germany I never have heared about this standpoint anyway.
The point is to prevent a monopoly.
Wether you look at that from the standpoint if a customer or from a "competitor" of that monopoly does not matter, it is just the same problem.angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226140</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1257178500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFS: </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The article paraphrases a Gartner analyst, who points out that the Senators' letter "comes from a US point of view and doesn't take into account how the EU operates."</p></div><p>Combining that with your comment:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Further, the EU Commissions role is to ensure a competitive, fair and transparent market and to protect the consumer from abuse not to ensure Suns or Oracles profit, as the letter appears to imply.</p></div><p>The obvious implication is that the Senators in question (as well as the FTC) think that their job is to protect Sun's and Oracle's profits, not protect citizens from abuse. That says loads about the state of the US federal government right now. In addition, there's good reason to think that they didn't expect the public to find out about their actions, or if they did, interpret it as the senators protecting their jobs from the evil European socialists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFS : The article paraphrases a Gartner analyst , who points out that the Senators ' letter " comes from a US point of view and does n't take into account how the EU operates .
" Combining that with your comment : Further , the EU Commissions role is to ensure a competitive , fair and transparent market and to protect the consumer from abuse not to ensure Suns or Oracles profit , as the letter appears to imply.The obvious implication is that the Senators in question ( as well as the FTC ) think that their job is to protect Sun 's and Oracle 's profits , not protect citizens from abuse .
That says loads about the state of the US federal government right now .
In addition , there 's good reason to think that they did n't expect the public to find out about their actions , or if they did , interpret it as the senators protecting their jobs from the evil European socialists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFS: The article paraphrases a Gartner analyst, who points out that the Senators' letter "comes from a US point of view and doesn't take into account how the EU operates.
"Combining that with your comment:Further, the EU Commissions role is to ensure a competitive, fair and transparent market and to protect the consumer from abuse not to ensure Suns or Oracles profit, as the letter appears to imply.The obvious implication is that the Senators in question (as well as the FTC) think that their job is to protect Sun's and Oracle's profits, not protect citizens from abuse.
That says loads about the state of the US federal government right now.
In addition, there's good reason to think that they didn't expect the public to find out about their actions, or if they did, interpret it as the senators protecting their jobs from the evil European socialists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225938</id>
	<title>Re:No legitimate concerns</title>
	<author>TheSunborn</author>
	<datestamp>1257177480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL is OSS but the problem is that if you fork it you will end up with something that is quite difficult to support commercially because it will be gpl only, meaning that you can't use the mysql lib(And thus mysql itself) from closed source(Or just non gpl compatible) software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL is OSS but the problem is that if you fork it you will end up with something that is quite difficult to support commercially because it will be gpl only , meaning that you ca n't use the mysql lib ( And thus mysql itself ) from closed source ( Or just non gpl compatible ) software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL is OSS but the problem is that if you fork it you will end up with something that is quite difficult to support commercially because it will be gpl only, meaning that you can't use the mysql lib(And thus mysql itself) from closed source(Or just non gpl compatible) software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225528</id>
	<title>Sun needed some gadgets</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1257174960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were set up to become an open source Apple if they wanted to be, and expand their offerings outside enterprise/business, just as an addition. Hardware and open solaris. They just needed some electronic gadgets to get consumer awareness going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were set up to become an open source Apple if they wanted to be , and expand their offerings outside enterprise/business , just as an addition .
Hardware and open solaris .
They just needed some electronic gadgets to get consumer awareness going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were set up to become an open source Apple if they wanted to be, and expand their offerings outside enterprise/business, just as an addition.
Hardware and open solaris.
They just needed some electronic gadgets to get consumer awareness going.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225390</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Further, the EU Commissions role is to ensure a competitive, fair and transparent market and to protect the consumer from abuse not to ensure Suns or Oracles profit, as the letter appears to imply.</p></div><p>Paradoxical, isn't it.... that a bunch of Eurocrats are now appearing to be more concerned about maintaining a competitive market than the governing body of the USA which was founded on a platform of rejecting oligarchic rule by degenerate aristocrats and royalty in favor of democracy and equal opportunities for all. It's almost embarrassing to contemplate how low the the US senate had to sink to create this impression.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , the EU Commissions role is to ensure a competitive , fair and transparent market and to protect the consumer from abuse not to ensure Suns or Oracles profit , as the letter appears to imply.Paradoxical , is n't it.... that a bunch of Eurocrats are now appearing to be more concerned about maintaining a competitive market than the governing body of the USA which was founded on a platform of rejecting oligarchic rule by degenerate aristocrats and royalty in favor of democracy and equal opportunities for all .
It 's almost embarrassing to contemplate how low the the US senate had to sink to create this impression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, the EU Commissions role is to ensure a competitive, fair and transparent market and to protect the consumer from abuse not to ensure Suns or Oracles profit, as the letter appears to imply.Paradoxical, isn't it.... that a bunch of Eurocrats are now appearing to be more concerned about maintaining a competitive market than the governing body of the USA which was founded on a platform of rejecting oligarchic rule by degenerate aristocrats and royalty in favor of democracy and equal opportunities for all.
It's almost embarrassing to contemplate how low the the US senate had to sink to create this impression.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</id>
	<title>Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p>"The DoJ runs on completely different competition rules than the EU," he said. "The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers. Their decision is businesses can look after themselves. The EU is more likely to be protective of competitors. They believe trade is better with more small competitors."</p><p>I am glad I am not the only one believing that...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " The DoJ runs on completely different competition rules than the EU , " he said .
" The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers .
Their decision is businesses can look after themselves .
The EU is more likely to be protective of competitors .
They believe trade is better with more small competitors .
" I am glad I am not the only one believing that... ; - ) ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:"The DoJ runs on completely different competition rules than the EU," he said.
"The DoJ looks at where there is harm to consumers.
Their decision is businesses can look after themselves.
The EU is more likely to be protective of competitors.
They believe trade is better with more small competitors.
"I am glad I am not the only one believing that... ;-)))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226810</id>
	<title>Re:Oposite result</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1257181560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem might be that they've so grown used to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown rolling over and playing dead on command, that they now assume the rest of the EU has no balls, either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem might be that they 've so grown used to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown rolling over and playing dead on command , that they now assume the rest of the EU has no balls , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem might be that they've so grown used to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown rolling over and playing dead on command, that they now assume the rest of the EU has no balls, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225844</id>
	<title>Re:Your lobbyists at work</title>
	<author>jmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1257176940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do the lobbists threaten to throw stones at the senators if they don't cooperate?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the lobbists threaten to throw stones at the senators if they do n't cooperate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the lobbists threaten to throw stones at the senators if they don't cooperate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228174</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you serious? This isn't about the EU being concerned  about a competitive market, it's more about MySQL's founders trying to get even with Sun. MySQL's founders aren't much more than a bunch of spoiled brats</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
This is n't about the EU being concerned about a competitive market , it 's more about MySQL 's founders trying to get even with Sun .
MySQL 's founders are n't much more than a bunch of spoiled brats</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
This isn't about the EU being concerned  about a competitive market, it's more about MySQL's founders trying to get even with Sun.
MySQL's founders aren't much more than a bunch of spoiled brats</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227040</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257182700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is true.</p><p>But basically the United States don't get competition law at all.</p><p>From an ordoeconomical perspective the <b>justified</b> elementary function of governmental intervention is to enforce market competition. Competition of course also benefits the procurement side (consumers) but that is a side effect. There also may be some cases where there is too much competition but that is a fringe case.</p><p>Competition law creates a free market, a "free competitive market". In ideal terms there should be no market entrance barriers.</p><p>The other aspect is of course that it is not upon US parliamentarians to interfere into the internal matters of the European Union, that is our market rules. I find that extremely unprofessional lobbying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is true.But basically the United States do n't get competition law at all.From an ordoeconomical perspective the justified elementary function of governmental intervention is to enforce market competition .
Competition of course also benefits the procurement side ( consumers ) but that is a side effect .
There also may be some cases where there is too much competition but that is a fringe case.Competition law creates a free market , a " free competitive market " .
In ideal terms there should be no market entrance barriers.The other aspect is of course that it is not upon US parliamentarians to interfere into the internal matters of the European Union , that is our market rules .
I find that extremely unprofessional lobbying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is true.But basically the United States don't get competition law at all.From an ordoeconomical perspective the justified elementary function of governmental intervention is to enforce market competition.
Competition of course also benefits the procurement side (consumers) but that is a side effect.
There also may be some cases where there is too much competition but that is a fringe case.Competition law creates a free market, a "free competitive market".
In ideal terms there should be no market entrance barriers.The other aspect is of course that it is not upon US parliamentarians to interfere into the internal matters of the European Union, that is our market rules.
I find that extremely unprofessional lobbying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229036</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>CoderDevo</author>
	<datestamp>1257191880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on that logic, the DoJ cleared the merger simply because neither Oracle nor Sun sells "consumer" products.  Generally, consumers are considered to be real people that purchase goods or services for personal consumption.  It would be hard to show harm to consumers since the impact on them by this merger would be so indirect.</p><p>When is the last time little Suzie wanted better support for her Sun laptop?  When has your spouse ever called out "Honey! The Oracle man is here to setup our media center!"</p><p>The EU looking at how competition is affected expands the scope to include B2B trade as well as B2C.  I'd say this is worthwhile, since improved competition for B2B trade has an indirect benefit to consumers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on that logic , the DoJ cleared the merger simply because neither Oracle nor Sun sells " consumer " products .
Generally , consumers are considered to be real people that purchase goods or services for personal consumption .
It would be hard to show harm to consumers since the impact on them by this merger would be so indirect.When is the last time little Suzie wanted better support for her Sun laptop ?
When has your spouse ever called out " Honey !
The Oracle man is here to setup our media center !
" The EU looking at how competition is affected expands the scope to include B2B trade as well as B2C .
I 'd say this is worthwhile , since improved competition for B2B trade has an indirect benefit to consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on that logic, the DoJ cleared the merger simply because neither Oracle nor Sun sells "consumer" products.
Generally, consumers are considered to be real people that purchase goods or services for personal consumption.
It would be hard to show harm to consumers since the impact on them by this merger would be so indirect.When is the last time little Suzie wanted better support for her Sun laptop?
When has your spouse ever called out "Honey!
The Oracle man is here to setup our media center!
"The EU looking at how competition is affected expands the scope to include B2B trade as well as B2C.
I'd say this is worthwhile, since improved competition for B2B trade has an indirect benefit to consumers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225184</id>
	<title>No legitimate concerns</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is the EC holding this up? There are no legitimate concerns...MySQL is OSS, so let it be.</p><p>I can't help but feel the EC is trying to set an example, at the expense of actually doing the correct thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the EC holding this up ?
There are no legitimate concerns...MySQL is OSS , so let it be.I ca n't help but feel the EC is trying to set an example , at the expense of actually doing the correct thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the EC holding this up?
There are no legitimate concerns...MySQL is OSS, so let it be.I can't help but feel the EC is trying to set an example, at the expense of actually doing the correct thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225124</id>
	<title>The EU doesn't answer to the US</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1257172080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although the US assumes everybody will do when they say on pain of being the next military target that's not the way it works out in reality.</p><p>The EU bureaucrats serve themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although the US assumes everybody will do when they say on pain of being the next military target that 's not the way it works out in reality.The EU bureaucrats serve themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although the US assumes everybody will do when they say on pain of being the next military target that's not the way it works out in reality.The EU bureaucrats serve themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30231682</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257164160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, the US Senate never saw a merger it didn't like... or sees very few of them anyway. Apparently, they'd rather let companies get "too big to fail", at which point the only answer is a huge bail out or another merger. The losers are the consumers, tax payers and small businesses who, by implication, are "too small to succeed".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the US Senate never saw a merger it did n't like... or sees very few of them anyway .
Apparently , they 'd rather let companies get " too big to fail " , at which point the only answer is a huge bail out or another merger .
The losers are the consumers , tax payers and small businesses who , by implication , are " too small to succeed " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the US Senate never saw a merger it didn't like... or sees very few of them anyway.
Apparently, they'd rather let companies get "too big to fail", at which point the only answer is a huge bail out or another merger.
The losers are the consumers, tax payers and small businesses who, by implication, are "too small to succeed".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229452</id>
	<title>who cares what the EU thinks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257193800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I checked, these are American companies.  Just go ahead and do the merger already.  Tell the EU where to get off.  You don't have to do business with the EU, they can go without.  Cut them off.  See how they like that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , these are American companies .
Just go ahead and do the merger already .
Tell the EU where to get off .
You do n't have to do business with the EU , they can go without .
Cut them off .
See how they like that .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked, these are American companies.
Just go ahead and do the merger already.
Tell the EU where to get off.
You don't have to do business with the EU, they can go without.
Cut them off.
See how they like that.
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227648</id>
	<title>Re:If I were Sun-Oracle</title>
	<author>durdur</author>
	<datestamp>1257185700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, Oracle gets a substantial portion of its sales outside the US. So shutting down foreign sales would only hurt themselves.</p><p>Second, antitrust laws in the US got their origin from gross abuses of monopoly power by large corporations, which harmed both business competitors and consumers. It's not just a fable that this happens.</p><p>I don't really have an opinion on whether Oracle should swallow Sun or not, but if they do, then there would be only two big companies in the J2EE middleware business (Oracle and IBM) and only three with a big part of the database market (IBM, Oracle and Microsoft). So that's possibly a problem. But holding up the deal because of MySQL does not make a lot of sense to me. MySQL may compete with Oracle, but IBM DB2 and Microsoft SQL Server are more direct competitors I think. And Oracle really can't kill it, because it's OSS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , Oracle gets a substantial portion of its sales outside the US .
So shutting down foreign sales would only hurt themselves.Second , antitrust laws in the US got their origin from gross abuses of monopoly power by large corporations , which harmed both business competitors and consumers .
It 's not just a fable that this happens.I do n't really have an opinion on whether Oracle should swallow Sun or not , but if they do , then there would be only two big companies in the J2EE middleware business ( Oracle and IBM ) and only three with a big part of the database market ( IBM , Oracle and Microsoft ) .
So that 's possibly a problem .
But holding up the deal because of MySQL does not make a lot of sense to me .
MySQL may compete with Oracle , but IBM DB2 and Microsoft SQL Server are more direct competitors I think .
And Oracle really ca n't kill it , because it 's OSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, Oracle gets a substantial portion of its sales outside the US.
So shutting down foreign sales would only hurt themselves.Second, antitrust laws in the US got their origin from gross abuses of monopoly power by large corporations, which harmed both business competitors and consumers.
It's not just a fable that this happens.I don't really have an opinion on whether Oracle should swallow Sun or not, but if they do, then there would be only two big companies in the J2EE middleware business (Oracle and IBM) and only three with a big part of the database market (IBM, Oracle and Microsoft).
So that's possibly a problem.
But holding up the deal because of MySQL does not make a lot of sense to me.
MySQL may compete with Oracle, but IBM DB2 and Microsoft SQL Server are more direct competitors I think.
And Oracle really can't kill it, because it's OSS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227092</id>
	<title>Give Schwartz and McNealy money for killing Sun!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257182940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oracle aside, approving this deal means giving McNealy and Schwartz a huge cash bonus for taking a company with no debt and large amounts of cash on hand and destroying it.  Something just stinks about the whole prospect IMHO.  Also, if this deal DOES go through, I look for it to be the root cause of the future death of Oracle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle aside , approving this deal means giving McNealy and Schwartz a huge cash bonus for taking a company with no debt and large amounts of cash on hand and destroying it .
Something just stinks about the whole prospect IMHO .
Also , if this deal DOES go through , I look for it to be the root cause of the future death of Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle aside, approving this deal means giving McNealy and Schwartz a huge cash bonus for taking a company with no debt and large amounts of cash on hand and destroying it.
Something just stinks about the whole prospect IMHO.
Also, if this deal DOES go through, I look for it to be the root cause of the future death of Oracle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228500</id>
	<title>I assume Larry Ellison</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1257189840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>got a reciept for the rental of 59 Senators.  Why else would they all help a man who is a perennial favorite in the 'Worlds' Worst Human' contest?</htmltext>
<tokenext>got a reciept for the rental of 59 Senators .
Why else would they all help a man who is a perennial favorite in the 'Worlds ' Worst Human ' contest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>got a reciept for the rental of 59 Senators.
Why else would they all help a man who is a perennial favorite in the 'Worlds' Worst Human' contest?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226346</id>
	<title>Not all that rare...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But yes, this is a another situation where I'd like our senators to SHUT UP.</p><p>If the EU wants to delay a decent company being swallowed by one that pisses me off daily, that's FINE.</p><p>Yes, I know it only delays the inevitable.   But Sun becomes worth less to Oracle every day this gets delayed.  AND I'M OK WITH THAT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But yes , this is a another situation where I 'd like our senators to SHUT UP.If the EU wants to delay a decent company being swallowed by one that pisses me off daily , that 's FINE.Yes , I know it only delays the inevitable .
But Sun becomes worth less to Oracle every day this gets delayed .
AND I 'M OK WITH THAT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But yes, this is a another situation where I'd like our senators to SHUT UP.If the EU wants to delay a decent company being swallowed by one that pisses me off daily, that's FINE.Yes, I know it only delays the inevitable.
But Sun becomes worth less to Oracle every day this gets delayed.
AND I'M OK WITH THAT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228744</id>
	<title>Re:EU has a limited view on data store competition</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1257190740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``why do we need a relational database to store our data? I find developing with Java / Hibernate against a relational database very time consuming and was it not that I invested so much time and effort in learning these technologies''</p><p>Eh? What does the fact that you find developing with Java and Hibernate time consuming have to do with the utility of relational databases?</p><p>I've also found developing with Java and Hibernate against relational databases time consuming, because (1) I had to learn a new framework (Hibernate), (2) developing \_anything\_ in Java is more time consuming than what I'm used to, and (3) I spent a lot of time tracking down performance issues and eventually solved them by bypassing Hibernate and using JDBC instead.</p><p>After all this, I am still convinced that relational databases are a good idea. Why would my experience with Java and Hibernate have changed that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` why do we need a relational database to store our data ?
I find developing with Java / Hibernate against a relational database very time consuming and was it not that I invested so much time and effort in learning these technologies''Eh ?
What does the fact that you find developing with Java and Hibernate time consuming have to do with the utility of relational databases ? I 've also found developing with Java and Hibernate against relational databases time consuming , because ( 1 ) I had to learn a new framework ( Hibernate ) , ( 2 ) developing \ _anything \ _ in Java is more time consuming than what I 'm used to , and ( 3 ) I spent a lot of time tracking down performance issues and eventually solved them by bypassing Hibernate and using JDBC instead.After all this , I am still convinced that relational databases are a good idea .
Why would my experience with Java and Hibernate have changed that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``why do we need a relational database to store our data?
I find developing with Java / Hibernate against a relational database very time consuming and was it not that I invested so much time and effort in learning these technologies''Eh?
What does the fact that you find developing with Java and Hibernate time consuming have to do with the utility of relational databases?I've also found developing with Java and Hibernate against relational databases time consuming, because (1) I had to learn a new framework (Hibernate), (2) developing \_anything\_ in Java is more time consuming than what I'm used to, and (3) I spent a lot of time tracking down performance issues and eventually solved them by bypassing Hibernate and using JDBC instead.After all this, I am still convinced that relational databases are a good idea.
Why would my experience with Java and Hibernate have changed that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228070</id>
	<title>US political interference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257187680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The United States has no right to interfere in the internal political affairs of Europe.<br>Why can't Americans realise that they are a weak, incompetent, semi-third world, semi-theocratic, corporate / military state.<br>No sane European aspires to any of the corrupt ideas of the US regime. Just by attempting to interfere, in the non-politicised due process of more democratic countries, the United States regime is once again attacking democracy for the benefit of their corporate puppet masters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The United States has no right to interfere in the internal political affairs of Europe.Why ca n't Americans realise that they are a weak , incompetent , semi-third world , semi-theocratic , corporate / military state.No sane European aspires to any of the corrupt ideas of the US regime .
Just by attempting to interfere , in the non-politicised due process of more democratic countries , the United States regime is once again attacking democracy for the benefit of their corporate puppet masters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The United States has no right to interfere in the internal political affairs of Europe.Why can't Americans realise that they are a weak, incompetent, semi-third world, semi-theocratic, corporate / military state.No sane European aspires to any of the corrupt ideas of the US regime.
Just by attempting to interfere, in the non-politicised due process of more democratic countries, the United States regime is once again attacking democracy for the benefit of their corporate puppet masters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132</id>
	<title>Hold on</title>
	<author>CaptainZapp</author>
	<datestamp>1257172080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to what was made public Oracle was made aware of the reservations of the EU commission, on which Oracle answered: "That they are essentially dumb farks that understand neither business nor open source".<p>
For starters: This is <b>not</b> a clever approach to deal with the European commision. Oracle could sell MySQL and there would be no problem at all. But no, ol' Larry decided to get confrontational.</p><p>
Further, the EU Commissions role is to ensure a competitive, fair and transparent market and to protect the consumer from abuse not to ensure Suns or Oracles profit, as the letter appears to imply.</p><p>
Thanks for trying, but no cigar for you senator dudes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to what was made public Oracle was made aware of the reservations of the EU commission , on which Oracle answered : " That they are essentially dumb farks that understand neither business nor open source " .
For starters : This is not a clever approach to deal with the European commision .
Oracle could sell MySQL and there would be no problem at all .
But no , ol ' Larry decided to get confrontational .
Further , the EU Commissions role is to ensure a competitive , fair and transparent market and to protect the consumer from abuse not to ensure Suns or Oracles profit , as the letter appears to imply .
Thanks for trying , but no cigar for you senator dudes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to what was made public Oracle was made aware of the reservations of the EU commission, on which Oracle answered: "That they are essentially dumb farks that understand neither business nor open source".
For starters: This is not a clever approach to deal with the European commision.
Oracle could sell MySQL and there would be no problem at all.
But no, ol' Larry decided to get confrontational.
Further, the EU Commissions role is to ensure a competitive, fair and transparent market and to protect the consumer from abuse not to ensure Suns or Oracles profit, as the letter appears to imply.
Thanks for trying, but no cigar for you senator dudes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225286</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it is more like the EU would prefer a few large European companies and smaller non-European competitors.  If this was SAP buying Sun, it would have been approved months ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is more like the EU would prefer a few large European companies and smaller non-European competitors .
If this was SAP buying Sun , it would have been approved months ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is more like the EU would prefer a few large European companies and smaller non-European competitors.
If this was SAP buying Sun, it would have been approved months ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229596</id>
	<title>Re:Give Schwartz and McNealy money for killing Sun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257194460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun was dead the minute that Jonathan "look, I'm a geek--I have a ponytail too!" Schwartz took it over. He has consistently and publicly done everything in his power to run down the stock price, in order to make it a tempting buyout option. A while ago, Sun had enough free cash on hand to take the company private again, and Schwartz refused to do so. "We're looking for a buyer" was the essence of his message. It has convinced me that he's not incompetent, as it widely believed, but ruthlessly competent at making a profit by destroying his own company.</p><p>I still don't understand how McNealy fits into it anymore. He's already stupidly rich, and it seems counter-intuitive for him to want to run his own company into the ground for the sake of getting richer, but who knows? He doesn't seem to be trying to save them.</p><p>I'd love to see Oracle spin off MySQL, complete the purchase, and then kick these two to the curb without a single extra penny. Fire them for non-performance, and threaten enormous lawsuits if they don't just get the hell out.</p><p>But that's just me, and I LIKE the colour of sky in my fantasy world!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun was dead the minute that Jonathan " look , I 'm a geek--I have a ponytail too !
" Schwartz took it over .
He has consistently and publicly done everything in his power to run down the stock price , in order to make it a tempting buyout option .
A while ago , Sun had enough free cash on hand to take the company private again , and Schwartz refused to do so .
" We 're looking for a buyer " was the essence of his message .
It has convinced me that he 's not incompetent , as it widely believed , but ruthlessly competent at making a profit by destroying his own company.I still do n't understand how McNealy fits into it anymore .
He 's already stupidly rich , and it seems counter-intuitive for him to want to run his own company into the ground for the sake of getting richer , but who knows ?
He does n't seem to be trying to save them.I 'd love to see Oracle spin off MySQL , complete the purchase , and then kick these two to the curb without a single extra penny .
Fire them for non-performance , and threaten enormous lawsuits if they do n't just get the hell out.But that 's just me , and I LIKE the colour of sky in my fantasy world !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun was dead the minute that Jonathan "look, I'm a geek--I have a ponytail too!
" Schwartz took it over.
He has consistently and publicly done everything in his power to run down the stock price, in order to make it a tempting buyout option.
A while ago, Sun had enough free cash on hand to take the company private again, and Schwartz refused to do so.
"We're looking for a buyer" was the essence of his message.
It has convinced me that he's not incompetent, as it widely believed, but ruthlessly competent at making a profit by destroying his own company.I still don't understand how McNealy fits into it anymore.
He's already stupidly rich, and it seems counter-intuitive for him to want to run his own company into the ground for the sake of getting richer, but who knows?
He doesn't seem to be trying to save them.I'd love to see Oracle spin off MySQL, complete the purchase, and then kick these two to the curb without a single extra penny.
Fire them for non-performance, and threaten enormous lawsuits if they don't just get the hell out.But that's just me, and I LIKE the colour of sky in my fantasy world!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225398</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it doesn't.  In fact it says the exact-opposite: "The EU believes trade is better with more small competitors."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it does n't .
In fact it says the exact-opposite : " The EU believes trade is better with more small competitors .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it doesn't.
In fact it says the exact-opposite: "The EU believes trade is better with more small competitors.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225910</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it is more like the EU would prefer a few large European companies and smaller non-European competitors. If this was SAP buying Sun, it would have been approved months ago.</p></div><p>Yes it would have been approved months ago, but not for the reason you mention. It would have gone through as SAP does not produce a major product in the database market.</p><p>The European Competition Commission did not block the sale of MySQL to Sun. That was a big American company buying a smaller European company. They are now questioning (with good reason) whether the number of major players in the Database market should be reduced as Oracle gain even more dominance. Now in an ideal world the sale would have been turned down in the US, but the problem is that SUN may not survive on its own so it has to be taken over by someone. It is currently losing $100 million a month (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001\_3-10379673-92.html).</p><p>This is what the US senators are trying to get over to the EU. They are desperately hoping that all the Sun employees in the US do not go adding to the high unemployment there already. However the European Commission has the opposite worry: They are probably very concerned that MySQL will be wound up by Oracle who see it as undercutting there flagship database product. This will contribute heavily to European unemployment instead. Even if the MySQL product continues I cannot see why you would not start to rationalise the development of both products and try and get the two teams more entwined. I know the two products are very different, but the skillset of two teams must be similar and it would be an obvious way to cut SUN's overheads since the majority of the development is community lead anyway. They would try and tempt some Lead MySQL dev's to the states then just cut the rest loose since most of the non-open source parts of MySQL are the parts aimed at enterprise that probably do not sit very well with Oracle anyway.</p><p>Ultimately it is highly unlikely that the sale will be blocked, but it is more likely that Oracle may be forced to sell the MySQL division or their existing InnoDB division as a condition of this purchase. I would be quite happy to InnoDB and MySQL rolled into one then sold. This is probably highly unlikely though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is more like the EU would prefer a few large European companies and smaller non-European competitors .
If this was SAP buying Sun , it would have been approved months ago.Yes it would have been approved months ago , but not for the reason you mention .
It would have gone through as SAP does not produce a major product in the database market.The European Competition Commission did not block the sale of MySQL to Sun .
That was a big American company buying a smaller European company .
They are now questioning ( with good reason ) whether the number of major players in the Database market should be reduced as Oracle gain even more dominance .
Now in an ideal world the sale would have been turned down in the US , but the problem is that SUN may not survive on its own so it has to be taken over by someone .
It is currently losing $ 100 million a month ( http : //news.cnet.com/8301-1001 \ _3-10379673-92.html ) .This is what the US senators are trying to get over to the EU .
They are desperately hoping that all the Sun employees in the US do not go adding to the high unemployment there already .
However the European Commission has the opposite worry : They are probably very concerned that MySQL will be wound up by Oracle who see it as undercutting there flagship database product .
This will contribute heavily to European unemployment instead .
Even if the MySQL product continues I can not see why you would not start to rationalise the development of both products and try and get the two teams more entwined .
I know the two products are very different , but the skillset of two teams must be similar and it would be an obvious way to cut SUN 's overheads since the majority of the development is community lead anyway .
They would try and tempt some Lead MySQL dev 's to the states then just cut the rest loose since most of the non-open source parts of MySQL are the parts aimed at enterprise that probably do not sit very well with Oracle anyway.Ultimately it is highly unlikely that the sale will be blocked , but it is more likely that Oracle may be forced to sell the MySQL division or their existing InnoDB division as a condition of this purchase .
I would be quite happy to InnoDB and MySQL rolled into one then sold .
This is probably highly unlikely though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is more like the EU would prefer a few large European companies and smaller non-European competitors.
If this was SAP buying Sun, it would have been approved months ago.Yes it would have been approved months ago, but not for the reason you mention.
It would have gone through as SAP does not produce a major product in the database market.The European Competition Commission did not block the sale of MySQL to Sun.
That was a big American company buying a smaller European company.
They are now questioning (with good reason) whether the number of major players in the Database market should be reduced as Oracle gain even more dominance.
Now in an ideal world the sale would have been turned down in the US, but the problem is that SUN may not survive on its own so it has to be taken over by someone.
It is currently losing $100 million a month (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001\_3-10379673-92.html).This is what the US senators are trying to get over to the EU.
They are desperately hoping that all the Sun employees in the US do not go adding to the high unemployment there already.
However the European Commission has the opposite worry: They are probably very concerned that MySQL will be wound up by Oracle who see it as undercutting there flagship database product.
This will contribute heavily to European unemployment instead.
Even if the MySQL product continues I cannot see why you would not start to rationalise the development of both products and try and get the two teams more entwined.
I know the two products are very different, but the skillset of two teams must be similar and it would be an obvious way to cut SUN's overheads since the majority of the development is community lead anyway.
They would try and tempt some Lead MySQL dev's to the states then just cut the rest loose since most of the non-open source parts of MySQL are the parts aimed at enterprise that probably do not sit very well with Oracle anyway.Ultimately it is highly unlikely that the sale will be blocked, but it is more likely that Oracle may be forced to sell the MySQL division or their existing InnoDB division as a condition of this purchase.
I would be quite happy to InnoDB and MySQL rolled into one then sold.
This is probably highly unlikely though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227552</id>
	<title>Dear US senators</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1257185400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear US senators,
</p><p>Please lets us do our fucking business, and you do your fucking business for once of controlling your banks so they don't blow up the world economy, for the Xth time. We all know what happened last time the US argued for LESS government oversight.
</p><p>With kind regards,
</p><p>The EU.
</p><p>P.S. Isn't it about time you paid of your debt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear US senators , Please lets us do our fucking business , and you do your fucking business for once of controlling your banks so they do n't blow up the world economy , for the Xth time .
We all know what happened last time the US argued for LESS government oversight .
With kind regards , The EU .
P.S. Is n't it about time you paid of your debt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear US senators,
Please lets us do our fucking business, and you do your fucking business for once of controlling your banks so they don't blow up the world economy, for the Xth time.
We all know what happened last time the US argued for LESS government oversight.
With kind regards,
The EU.
P.S. Isn't it about time you paid of your debt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229752</id>
	<title>Re:Oposite result</title>
	<author>mrjatsun</author>
	<datestamp>1257195240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It's very simple, if Oracle wants to sell in the European markets they have to obey the European<br>&gt; fair-competition rules. If they don't like them they can leave the market. In the same way, if any<br>&gt; European company wants to sell in the US market they have to obey the US fair-competition<br>&gt; rules or leave the market.</p><p>And what happens if the EU ignores it's own fair-competition rules and tries to block the<br>sale for political purposes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's very simple , if Oracle wants to sell in the European markets they have to obey the European &gt; fair-competition rules .
If they do n't like them they can leave the market .
In the same way , if any &gt; European company wants to sell in the US market they have to obey the US fair-competition &gt; rules or leave the market.And what happens if the EU ignores it 's own fair-competition rules and tries to block thesale for political purposes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It's very simple, if Oracle wants to sell in the European markets they have to obey the European&gt; fair-competition rules.
If they don't like them they can leave the market.
In the same way, if any&gt; European company wants to sell in the US market they have to obey the US fair-competition&gt; rules or leave the market.And what happens if the EU ignores it's own fair-competition rules and tries to block thesale for political purposes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226404</id>
	<title>I can just imagine how the US Senate would feel</title>
	<author>Darth Sdlavrot</author>
	<datestamp>1257179760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if the Euro Parliament sent a missive saying "get off the pot and approve this business deal."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if the Euro Parliament sent a missive saying " get off the pot and approve this business deal .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the Euro Parliament sent a missive saying "get off the pot and approve this business deal.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228802</id>
	<title>Kerry and Hatch: Two</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tools of the lobbyists.</p><p>Yours In Yasnogorsk,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tools of the lobbyists.Yours In Yasnogorsk,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tools of the lobbyists.Yours In Yasnogorsk,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30231554</id>
	<title>Hatch?</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1257163020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what he has to say,<br>It makes no difference anyway,<br>Whatever it is, I'm against it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what he has to say,It makes no difference anyway,Whatever it is , I 'm against it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what he has to say,It makes no difference anyway,Whatever it is, I'm against it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225154</id>
	<title>Your lobbyists at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"managed to do something that US Presidents often find difficult: to make 59 US Senators from both sides of the aisle agree on something."</p><p>The lobbists agree =&gt; the senators agree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" managed to do something that US Presidents often find difficult : to make 59 US Senators from both sides of the aisle agree on something .
" The lobbists agree = &gt; the senators agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"managed to do something that US Presidents often find difficult: to make 59 US Senators from both sides of the aisle agree on something.
"The lobbists agree =&gt; the senators agree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30230598</id>
	<title>Re:Oposite result</title>
	<author>FatherOfONe</author>
	<datestamp>1257156420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What most people believe is that someone (IBM, Microsoft) is paying the EU to "slow" down the deal.  NOBODY in their right mind believes that the deal won't go through.  So Oracle and Sun are using all the means they can to help get this deal done.  Obviously someone on the other side is paying some very large amounts of cash to the EU to slow this down and Oracle and or Sun doesn't have the connections there that IBM/Microsoft have.  It could also be HP.  Actually now that I think about it, it could also be SAP.  They are based out of Europe and they will be hurt if this deal goes through quickly.</p><p>This has NOTHING to do with the EU doing "due diligence" or trying to protect competitors or consumers.  It has EVERYTHING to do with $$$$.  Again, does anyone think this won't go through?  This is a "nice" way for the politicians over in the U.S.A. to openly ask for this to get done and "hint" that they can also drag their feet on stuff.  Things like say FDA import bans on medical equipment...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What most people believe is that someone ( IBM , Microsoft ) is paying the EU to " slow " down the deal .
NOBODY in their right mind believes that the deal wo n't go through .
So Oracle and Sun are using all the means they can to help get this deal done .
Obviously someone on the other side is paying some very large amounts of cash to the EU to slow this down and Oracle and or Sun does n't have the connections there that IBM/Microsoft have .
It could also be HP .
Actually now that I think about it , it could also be SAP .
They are based out of Europe and they will be hurt if this deal goes through quickly.This has NOTHING to do with the EU doing " due diligence " or trying to protect competitors or consumers .
It has EVERYTHING to do with $ $ $ $ .
Again , does anyone think this wo n't go through ?
This is a " nice " way for the politicians over in the U.S.A. to openly ask for this to get done and " hint " that they can also drag their feet on stuff .
Things like say FDA import bans on medical equipment.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What most people believe is that someone (IBM, Microsoft) is paying the EU to "slow" down the deal.
NOBODY in their right mind believes that the deal won't go through.
So Oracle and Sun are using all the means they can to help get this deal done.
Obviously someone on the other side is paying some very large amounts of cash to the EU to slow this down and Oracle and or Sun doesn't have the connections there that IBM/Microsoft have.
It could also be HP.
Actually now that I think about it, it could also be SAP.
They are based out of Europe and they will be hurt if this deal goes through quickly.This has NOTHING to do with the EU doing "due diligence" or trying to protect competitors or consumers.
It has EVERYTHING to do with $$$$.
Again, does anyone think this won't go through?
This is a "nice" way for the politicians over in the U.S.A. to openly ask for this to get done and "hint" that they can also drag their feet on stuff.
Things like say FDA import bans on medical equipment...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225168</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will the racist picture of Michelle Obama affect the decision? Surely the GNAA cannot disrupt the Sun Oracle deal...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the racist picture of Michelle Obama affect the decision ?
Surely the GNAA can not disrupt the Sun Oracle deal.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the racist picture of Michelle Obama affect the decision?
Surely the GNAA cannot disrupt the Sun Oracle deal...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227100</id>
	<title>Re:If I were Sun-Oracle</title>
	<author>Cassius105</author>
	<datestamp>1257183000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The shareholders of Oracle/Sun would lynch the executives for pulling out of the biggest market place in the world massively damaging their own business.

Shareholders don't tend to approve of actions that will destroy the companies profits overnight</htmltext>
<tokenext>The shareholders of Oracle/Sun would lynch the executives for pulling out of the biggest market place in the world massively damaging their own business .
Shareholders do n't tend to approve of actions that will destroy the companies profits overnight</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The shareholders of Oracle/Sun would lynch the executives for pulling out of the biggest market place in the world massively damaging their own business.
Shareholders don't tend to approve of actions that will destroy the companies profits overnight</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225410</id>
	<title>Sorry Blairs not in at the moment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please call back at another time, the rest of us are not your bitches (in particular I doubt the French are keen on taking advise from people so petty they renamed their French fries)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please call back at another time , the rest of us are not your bitches ( in particular I doubt the French are keen on taking advise from people so petty they renamed their French fries )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please call back at another time, the rest of us are not your bitches (in particular I doubt the French are keen on taking advise from people so petty they renamed their French fries)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228508</id>
	<title>Sick of politics and power grabs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this different from Chrysler/Fiat.... or more close to [EU] home: Porsche-VW (eventually the biggest company in the world?)...
<br>
<br>
All the EU is doing to blocking this to preserve SAP--which we use here and IMO... is subpar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this different from Chrysler/Fiat.... or more close to [ EU ] home : Porsche-VW ( eventually the biggest company in the world ? ) .. .
All the EU is doing to blocking this to preserve SAP--which we use here and IMO... is subpar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this different from Chrysler/Fiat.... or more close to [EU] home: Porsche-VW (eventually the biggest company in the world?)...
All the EU is doing to blocking this to preserve SAP--which we use here and IMO... is subpar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225882</id>
	<title>Oposite result</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1257177120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets see if I got this right:<br>- The legislators of the 2nd largest western economy, pushed by lobbyists and in order to further the economic gains of companies based in their economic zone try to interfere in the internal affairs of the top largest western economy.</p><p>Sure, that's bound to work.</p><p>It's just as likely succeed as it would be if members of the European Parliament where trying to influence the US competition authorities with regards to European companies that <b>have activities in US soil</b>.</p><p>It's very simple, if Oracle wants to sell in the European markets they have to obey the European fair-competition rules. If they don't like them they can leave the market. In the same way, if any European company wants to sell in the US market they have to obey the <b>US</b> fair-competition rules or leave the market.</p><p>Honestly, Oracle having the legislators of a sovereign nation trying to influence the due process in an totally different economic and political block might very well be construed as an insult and have the opposite effect of what they intend.</p><p>What's next, will we have the People's Assembly of China send a letter to the European Commission saying "You guys over-reacted on the whole toxic paint on child's toys thing" ???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see if I got this right : - The legislators of the 2nd largest western economy , pushed by lobbyists and in order to further the economic gains of companies based in their economic zone try to interfere in the internal affairs of the top largest western economy.Sure , that 's bound to work.It 's just as likely succeed as it would be if members of the European Parliament where trying to influence the US competition authorities with regards to European companies that have activities in US soil.It 's very simple , if Oracle wants to sell in the European markets they have to obey the European fair-competition rules .
If they do n't like them they can leave the market .
In the same way , if any European company wants to sell in the US market they have to obey the US fair-competition rules or leave the market.Honestly , Oracle having the legislators of a sovereign nation trying to influence the due process in an totally different economic and political block might very well be construed as an insult and have the opposite effect of what they intend.What 's next , will we have the People 's Assembly of China send a letter to the European Commission saying " You guys over-reacted on the whole toxic paint on child 's toys thing " ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see if I got this right:- The legislators of the 2nd largest western economy, pushed by lobbyists and in order to further the economic gains of companies based in their economic zone try to interfere in the internal affairs of the top largest western economy.Sure, that's bound to work.It's just as likely succeed as it would be if members of the European Parliament where trying to influence the US competition authorities with regards to European companies that have activities in US soil.It's very simple, if Oracle wants to sell in the European markets they have to obey the European fair-competition rules.
If they don't like them they can leave the market.
In the same way, if any European company wants to sell in the US market they have to obey the US fair-competition rules or leave the market.Honestly, Oracle having the legislators of a sovereign nation trying to influence the due process in an totally different economic and political block might very well be construed as an insult and have the opposite effect of what they intend.What's next, will we have the People's Assembly of China send a letter to the European Commission saying "You guys over-reacted on the whole toxic paint on child's toys thing" ??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226254</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>citab</author>
	<datestamp>1257178980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.</p></div><p>Only if you believe that a company the size of Sun can disappear in a puff of smoke.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Sure, Sun would probably go bancrupt. The profitable parts (and some non-profitable, but believed to be profitable or able to be made profitable) would be sold off. A bunch of employees would start their own "Sun 2". Consulting firms would step in to take over maintainance contracts.</p><p>Interesting stuff happens when the old dog leaves the barn, you know?</p></div><p>of course they can... remember DEC? Digital was going up in a puff of smoke until Compaq acquired the remains.</p><p>Where are the Alpha boxes and OSX now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.Only if you believe that a company the size of Sun can disappear in a puff of smoke .
: - ) Sure , Sun would probably go bancrupt .
The profitable parts ( and some non-profitable , but believed to be profitable or able to be made profitable ) would be sold off .
A bunch of employees would start their own " Sun 2 " .
Consulting firms would step in to take over maintainance contracts.Interesting stuff happens when the old dog leaves the barn , you know ? of course they can... remember DEC ?
Digital was going up in a puff of smoke until Compaq acquired the remains.Where are the Alpha boxes and OSX now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two years from now we will either have a single Oracle/Sun company or a single Oracle company.Only if you believe that a company the size of Sun can disappear in a puff of smoke.
:-)Sure, Sun would probably go bancrupt.
The profitable parts (and some non-profitable, but believed to be profitable or able to be made profitable) would be sold off.
A bunch of employees would start their own "Sun 2".
Consulting firms would step in to take over maintainance contracts.Interesting stuff happens when the old dog leaves the barn, you know?of course they can... remember DEC?
Digital was going up in a puff of smoke until Compaq acquired the remains.Where are the Alpha boxes and OSX now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226366</id>
	<title>If I were Sun-Oracle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would tell the EU to pound sand. If they want to put the kabash on this, I would tell the EU that I will close every EU based office and stop selling my products to the EU<br>or<br>they can let the deal go through.</p><p>Take your pick. My bet would be that within 90 days EU businesses would be putting their own pressure on the EU to allow them to continue to purchase Sun/Oracle products.</p><p>What the hell does a government think they are doing controlling a PUBLIC company? You want our products? Buy them. You don't want us to participate with your businesses? See ya.<br>This is the difference between the capitalist based US and the liberal/communist mentality of the EU. The fact that the current US administration isn't backing the senators trying to tell the EU to let this deal goes through only underscores the liberal/communist direction of this administration. They think the government should be able to tell a business how they should do business. This may be true to a point (you have to make safe products that don't kill people) but they should not be able to to prevent two companies merging because of a freeware software package. MYSQL is OSS. What more do they want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would tell the EU to pound sand .
If they want to put the kabash on this , I would tell the EU that I will close every EU based office and stop selling my products to the EUorthey can let the deal go through.Take your pick .
My bet would be that within 90 days EU businesses would be putting their own pressure on the EU to allow them to continue to purchase Sun/Oracle products.What the hell does a government think they are doing controlling a PUBLIC company ?
You want our products ?
Buy them .
You do n't want us to participate with your businesses ?
See ya.This is the difference between the capitalist based US and the liberal/communist mentality of the EU .
The fact that the current US administration is n't backing the senators trying to tell the EU to let this deal goes through only underscores the liberal/communist direction of this administration .
They think the government should be able to tell a business how they should do business .
This may be true to a point ( you have to make safe products that do n't kill people ) but they should not be able to to prevent two companies merging because of a freeware software package .
MYSQL is OSS .
What more do they want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would tell the EU to pound sand.
If they want to put the kabash on this, I would tell the EU that I will close every EU based office and stop selling my products to the EUorthey can let the deal go through.Take your pick.
My bet would be that within 90 days EU businesses would be putting their own pressure on the EU to allow them to continue to purchase Sun/Oracle products.What the hell does a government think they are doing controlling a PUBLIC company?
You want our products?
Buy them.
You don't want us to participate with your businesses?
See ya.This is the difference between the capitalist based US and the liberal/communist mentality of the EU.
The fact that the current US administration isn't backing the senators trying to tell the EU to let this deal goes through only underscores the liberal/communist direction of this administration.
They think the government should be able to tell a business how they should do business.
This may be true to a point (you have to make safe products that don't kill people) but they should not be able to to prevent two companies merging because of a freeware software package.
MYSQL is OSS.
What more do they want?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228156</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I am not the only one believing that...</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1257188100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've said <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1438580&amp;cid=30051920" title="slashdot.org">this before</a> [slashdot.org], and I'll say it again: <i>Why does Oracle need mySQL?</i> <p>If there's no reasonable answer, and Oracle refuses to spin it off, it clearly shows monopolistic intent, and the EU is rightfully worried.</p><p>Just because 59 Senators got off their asses doesn't mean that Oracle should get to buy all the marbles. Spin off MySQL and profit from it, Larry, or watch as your investment dwindles and you contribute to local unemployment, just because you believe <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Everyone-Else-Must-Fail-Unvarnished/dp/0609610694" title="amazon.com">everyone else must fail</a> [amazon.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said this before [ slashdot.org ] , and I 'll say it again : Why does Oracle need mySQL ?
If there 's no reasonable answer , and Oracle refuses to spin it off , it clearly shows monopolistic intent , and the EU is rightfully worried.Just because 59 Senators got off their asses does n't mean that Oracle should get to buy all the marbles .
Spin off MySQL and profit from it , Larry , or watch as your investment dwindles and you contribute to local unemployment , just because you believe everyone else must fail [ amazon.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said this before [slashdot.org], and I'll say it again: Why does Oracle need mySQL?
If there's no reasonable answer, and Oracle refuses to spin it off, it clearly shows monopolistic intent, and the EU is rightfully worried.Just because 59 Senators got off their asses doesn't mean that Oracle should get to buy all the marbles.
Spin off MySQL and profit from it, Larry, or watch as your investment dwindles and you contribute to local unemployment, just because you believe everyone else must fail [amazon.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225152</id>
	<title>Enough already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EC has to stop interfering in things it does not understand.</p><p>First the ridiculous Microsoft case, and now this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EC has to stop interfering in things it does not understand.First the ridiculous Microsoft case , and now this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EC has to stop interfering in things it does not understand.First the ridiculous Microsoft case, and now this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227804</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well the EU commies essentially consists of dumb farks, don't they know the InnoDB is owned by Oracle which it has licensed MySQL to use ? MyIASM engine is useless while the Maria engine is nowhere complete since Monty launched it back in the year 2007. What's next Falcon engine?</p><p>The EU seems to be throwing its power around and nothing else. Think about it for a moment, doesn't it seem that its Monty whispering into Florian Mueller's ears to block the deal - so that Oracle sells it off and good 'ol Mr. Monty can conveniently buy it a lower price and still get to keep whatever he made off Sun ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the EU commies essentially consists of dumb farks , do n't they know the InnoDB is owned by Oracle which it has licensed MySQL to use ?
MyIASM engine is useless while the Maria engine is nowhere complete since Monty launched it back in the year 2007 .
What 's next Falcon engine ? The EU seems to be throwing its power around and nothing else .
Think about it for a moment , does n't it seem that its Monty whispering into Florian Mueller 's ears to block the deal - so that Oracle sells it off and good 'ol Mr. Monty can conveniently buy it a lower price and still get to keep whatever he made off Sun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the EU commies essentially consists of dumb farks, don't they know the InnoDB is owned by Oracle which it has licensed MySQL to use ?
MyIASM engine is useless while the Maria engine is nowhere complete since Monty launched it back in the year 2007.
What's next Falcon engine?The EU seems to be throwing its power around and nothing else.
Think about it for a moment, doesn't it seem that its Monty whispering into Florian Mueller's ears to block the deal - so that Oracle sells it off and good 'ol Mr. Monty can conveniently buy it a lower price and still get to keep whatever he made off Sun ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225478</id>
	<title>"Doesn't take into account how the EU operates"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In short, there was no bribe money for the EU commissioners.</p><p>Because that's how the EU operates.</p><p>And you can be sure SAP knows that.</p><p>France and Russia (not EU, but they DO have the oh-so-"sophisticated" European view of corruption....) even sold their UN Security Council votes to Saddam Hussein for oil contracts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In short , there was no bribe money for the EU commissioners.Because that 's how the EU operates.And you can be sure SAP knows that.France and Russia ( not EU , but they DO have the oh-so- " sophisticated " European view of corruption.... ) even sold their UN Security Council votes to Saddam Hussein for oil contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short, there was no bribe money for the EU commissioners.Because that's how the EU operates.And you can be sure SAP knows that.France and Russia (not EU, but they DO have the oh-so-"sophisticated" European view of corruption....) even sold their UN Security Council votes to Saddam Hussein for oil contracts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30236080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30231288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30255102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30230598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30231682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_25_0136238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30230598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225268
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30226144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30227040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30231682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225910
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30228156
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30236080
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30231288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_25_0136238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30225576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30229320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_25_0136238.30255102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
