<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_1422224</id>
	<title>Major Electronics Vendors Accused of Price Fixing</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267283820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Lucas123 writes <i>"After the DOJ launched an investigation last fall into price fixing by major optical disk drive manufacturers, a home electronics retail store filed a class-action lawsuit this week seeking triple damages for <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9162979/Sony\_LG\_Samsung\_Hitachi\_Toshiba\_accused\_of\_price\_fixing">what it is claiming to be long-standing collusion</a> among Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, LG Electronics and Hitachi to raise and fix prices on the drives. The suit claims the vendors used trade organization forums as meeting places to discuss the price fixing. 'These are big Asian smoke-stack industries where they're investing in big fabrication plants. You can't have a technology destroy the business,' said the attorney representing the plaintiff. 'If you fire up a big fab plant with CRT tubes, and the next generation technology destroys it, then you have a big fab plant manufacturing buggy whips. So they have to make sure the price points for these [newer] technologies ... don't destroy existing markets.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lucas123 writes " After the DOJ launched an investigation last fall into price fixing by major optical disk drive manufacturers , a home electronics retail store filed a class-action lawsuit this week seeking triple damages for what it is claiming to be long-standing collusion among Sony , Samsung , Toshiba , LG Electronics and Hitachi to raise and fix prices on the drives .
The suit claims the vendors used trade organization forums as meeting places to discuss the price fixing .
'These are big Asian smoke-stack industries where they 're investing in big fabrication plants .
You ca n't have a technology destroy the business, ' said the attorney representing the plaintiff .
'If you fire up a big fab plant with CRT tubes , and the next generation technology destroys it , then you have a big fab plant manufacturing buggy whips .
So they have to make sure the price points for these [ newer ] technologies ... do n't destroy existing markets .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lucas123 writes "After the DOJ launched an investigation last fall into price fixing by major optical disk drive manufacturers, a home electronics retail store filed a class-action lawsuit this week seeking triple damages for what it is claiming to be long-standing collusion among Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, LG Electronics and Hitachi to raise and fix prices on the drives.
The suit claims the vendors used trade organization forums as meeting places to discuss the price fixing.
'These are big Asian smoke-stack industries where they're investing in big fabrication plants.
You can't have a technology destroy the business,' said the attorney representing the plaintiff.
'If you fire up a big fab plant with CRT tubes, and the next generation technology destroys it, then you have a big fab plant manufacturing buggy whips.
So they have to make sure the price points for these [newer] technologies ... don't destroy existing markets.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297986</id>
	<title>Re:Price fixing should be allowed, IMO</title>
	<author>Philzli</author>
	<datestamp>1267297320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if I want less quality because I cannot afford the quality - I'm SOL?
<br>
And if the price is fixed, how do I innovate? Or rather, why should I?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I want less quality because I can not afford the quality - I 'm SOL ?
And if the price is fixed , how do I innovate ?
Or rather , why should I ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I want less quality because I cannot afford the quality - I'm SOL?
And if the price is fixed, how do I innovate?
Or rather, why should I?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297304</id>
	<title>Re:Turn to big-scale recycling</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1267292760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I willingly look for places to properly recycle my aging computer equipment and gadgets for free and they make 100\% profit off whatever they can scrape off it</p></div><p>And I want a pony, and a penguin, and ride on a spaceship! For Christmas, please, mommy!</p><p>I hope you realize that the reason why free recycling is not available is because it costs money. A lot of money: it doesn't turn anyone a profit (except for Office Depot, charging people $20 a box to send your computer to a Chinese dump). It's also very dirty business.</p><p>If there was actual money to be made doing recycling, there'd be a lot of people doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I willingly look for places to properly recycle my aging computer equipment and gadgets for free and they make 100 \ % profit off whatever they can scrape off itAnd I want a pony , and a penguin , and ride on a spaceship !
For Christmas , please , mommy ! I hope you realize that the reason why free recycling is not available is because it costs money .
A lot of money : it does n't turn anyone a profit ( except for Office Depot , charging people $ 20 a box to send your computer to a Chinese dump ) .
It 's also very dirty business.If there was actual money to be made doing recycling , there 'd be a lot of people doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I willingly look for places to properly recycle my aging computer equipment and gadgets for free and they make 100\% profit off whatever they can scrape off itAnd I want a pony, and a penguin, and ride on a spaceship!
For Christmas, please, mommy!I hope you realize that the reason why free recycling is not available is because it costs money.
A lot of money: it doesn't turn anyone a profit (except for Office Depot, charging people $20 a box to send your computer to a Chinese dump).
It's also very dirty business.If there was actual money to be made doing recycling, there'd be a lot of people doing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31298806</id>
	<title>Re:Turn to big-scale recycling</title>
	<author>azenpunk</author>
	<datestamp>1267302120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fry's has an annual "Come dump your old crap here for free" day.  Of course it's also an annual "buy replacements while you're here" day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fry 's has an annual " Come dump your old crap here for free " day .
Of course it 's also an annual " buy replacements while you 're here " day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fry's has an annual "Come dump your old crap here for free" day.
Of course it's also an annual "buy replacements while you're here" day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31306806</id>
	<title>Re:Is this seriously a problem?</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1267380060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Slap a tariff on the cheap electronics until the US is competitive.</i></p><p>When the US citizens keep on demanding more and more benefits from their government, they will never be competitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slap a tariff on the cheap electronics until the US is competitive.When the US citizens keep on demanding more and more benefits from their government , they will never be competitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Slap a tariff on the cheap electronics until the US is competitive.When the US citizens keep on demanding more and more benefits from their government, they will never be competitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296928</id>
	<title>Useless</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1267289280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't they go after telecom and cable?  I know of nobody complaining about dvd players.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they go after telecom and cable ?
I know of nobody complaining about dvd players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they go after telecom and cable?
I know of nobody complaining about dvd players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297238</id>
	<title>Re:"New and improved" posting technology.</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1267292280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a stupid argument being made by the lawyer.  Its a basic economic problem that all manufactures face not just high tech.</p><p>You want to produce the wonder widgets.  You have the facility to produce 100K widgets per year.  The widgets could be build more cheaply if you make a capital investment and expand your facility, this will mean a higher percentage of the manufacturing cost would be variable, as you accounting, sales, and other front office remain the same, upkeep costs on a large plant probably don't scale linearly with plant size, etc etc.  If you did this you could charge a lower price.</p><p>Ahh but what if someone develops a super wonder widget that makes wonder widgets obsolete and what if you can't easily retool your wonder widget plat to make super wonder widgets?  Why you would never be able to recoup the costs!  So you have a decision to make!  You either invest and expand or sell fewer widgets at a higher price.</p><p>Perhaps your competition decides to expand they are ultimately going to be able to undercut you on price and will take away your market share for the remainder of the product cycle, and you might never get it back.  Than again it could turn out to be a very poor investment for them if that super wonder widget is devised early on and you have capital on the sidelines available get your new plant ready.  Your copetitor might go bankrupt with a plant they can nologer use, it will have been a poor investment.</p><p>Something has happen this past decade where for some reason investors think they are entitlted to profits when they make good calls but should be protected from losses when they make bad ones; THATS NOT HOW CAPITALISM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOLKS!  You win some you lose some; if you work hard and smart you should win more than others nore than you loose/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a stupid argument being made by the lawyer .
Its a basic economic problem that all manufactures face not just high tech.You want to produce the wonder widgets .
You have the facility to produce 100K widgets per year .
The widgets could be build more cheaply if you make a capital investment and expand your facility , this will mean a higher percentage of the manufacturing cost would be variable , as you accounting , sales , and other front office remain the same , upkeep costs on a large plant probably do n't scale linearly with plant size , etc etc .
If you did this you could charge a lower price.Ahh but what if someone develops a super wonder widget that makes wonder widgets obsolete and what if you ca n't easily retool your wonder widget plat to make super wonder widgets ?
Why you would never be able to recoup the costs !
So you have a decision to make !
You either invest and expand or sell fewer widgets at a higher price.Perhaps your competition decides to expand they are ultimately going to be able to undercut you on price and will take away your market share for the remainder of the product cycle , and you might never get it back .
Than again it could turn out to be a very poor investment for them if that super wonder widget is devised early on and you have capital on the sidelines available get your new plant ready .
Your copetitor might go bankrupt with a plant they can nologer use , it will have been a poor investment.Something has happen this past decade where for some reason investors think they are entitlted to profits when they make good calls but should be protected from losses when they make bad ones ; THATS NOT HOW CAPITALISM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOLKS !
You win some you lose some ; if you work hard and smart you should win more than others nore than you loose/ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a stupid argument being made by the lawyer.
Its a basic economic problem that all manufactures face not just high tech.You want to produce the wonder widgets.
You have the facility to produce 100K widgets per year.
The widgets could be build more cheaply if you make a capital investment and expand your facility, this will mean a higher percentage of the manufacturing cost would be variable, as you accounting, sales, and other front office remain the same, upkeep costs on a large plant probably don't scale linearly with plant size, etc etc.
If you did this you could charge a lower price.Ahh but what if someone develops a super wonder widget that makes wonder widgets obsolete and what if you can't easily retool your wonder widget plat to make super wonder widgets?
Why you would never be able to recoup the costs!
So you have a decision to make!
You either invest and expand or sell fewer widgets at a higher price.Perhaps your competition decides to expand they are ultimately going to be able to undercut you on price and will take away your market share for the remainder of the product cycle, and you might never get it back.
Than again it could turn out to be a very poor investment for them if that super wonder widget is devised early on and you have capital on the sidelines available get your new plant ready.
Your copetitor might go bankrupt with a plant they can nologer use, it will have been a poor investment.Something has happen this past decade where for some reason investors think they are entitlted to profits when they make good calls but should be protected from losses when they make bad ones; THATS NOT HOW CAPITALISM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOLKS!
You win some you lose some; if you work hard and smart you should win more than others nore than you loose/.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31303414</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds Familiar</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1267299900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are under an illusion that price fixing is just plain pricing.<br>
Price fixing is illegal, because it involves all major manufacturers. It's like not only Toyota charging 100'000 for a car, but Toyota having an agreement with everyone else to set prices of cars at 100'000. That is illegal, because it defeats the idea of a competitive market.<br>
Oh, and please don't butcher the apostrophe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are under an illusion that price fixing is just plain pricing .
Price fixing is illegal , because it involves all major manufacturers .
It 's like not only Toyota charging 100'000 for a car , but Toyota having an agreement with everyone else to set prices of cars at 100'000 .
That is illegal , because it defeats the idea of a competitive market .
Oh , and please do n't butcher the apostrophe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are under an illusion that price fixing is just plain pricing.
Price fixing is illegal, because it involves all major manufacturers.
It's like not only Toyota charging 100'000 for a car, but Toyota having an agreement with everyone else to set prices of cars at 100'000.
That is illegal, because it defeats the idea of a competitive market.
Oh, and please don't butcher the apostrophe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296986</id>
	<title>Re:ZOMG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267289880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the price fixing is on the blu-ray end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the price fixing is on the blu-ray end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the price fixing is on the blu-ray end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297388</id>
	<title>Re:No Stereotypes please</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1267293540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>People the world over should not draw conclusions from the media.  If I were to use the US media as my primary source of information, I would think that some of these so-called other countries are simply regions of America that I've not been to.  I'd also think that anyone that doesn't live on the east or west coast lacks teeth and sleeps with their guns and their sisters. Point of fact, I have most of my teeth and I only sleep with one of my guns.  My sister sleeps with my brother.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People the world over should not draw conclusions from the media .
If I were to use the US media as my primary source of information , I would think that some of these so-called other countries are simply regions of America that I 've not been to .
I 'd also think that anyone that does n't live on the east or west coast lacks teeth and sleeps with their guns and their sisters .
Point of fact , I have most of my teeth and I only sleep with one of my guns .
My sister sleeps with my brother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People the world over should not draw conclusions from the media.
If I were to use the US media as my primary source of information, I would think that some of these so-called other countries are simply regions of America that I've not been to.
I'd also think that anyone that doesn't live on the east or west coast lacks teeth and sleeps with their guns and their sisters.
Point of fact, I have most of my teeth and I only sleep with one of my guns.
My sister sleeps with my brother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297066</id>
	<title>REALLY?</title>
	<author>Hollovoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267290720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Im about as shocked as when I found out that a bear shits in the woods.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im about as shocked as when I found out that a bear shits in the woods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im about as shocked as when I found out that a bear shits in the woods.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297838</id>
	<title>Fines for Beta tapes collusion were not enough</title>
	<author>afflatus\_com</author>
	<datestamp>1267296420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If found guilty, I hope the fines go well beyond damages and are punitive enough to give CEOs pause before repeating.</p><p>Sony in particular--it was only 2+ years since their fines part for collusion for price fixing for Beta-type tapes.</p><p><a href="http://broadcastengineering.com/news/eu-fines-betacom-1126/" title="broadcastengineering.com">http://broadcastengineering.com/news/eu-fines-betacom-1126/</a> [broadcastengineering.com]</p><p>Sony got an extra dose of fines in that one for obstructing justice with employees shredding documents. However, fines still weren't enough there since Oops they did it again. Most large corporations are amoral, they respond only to the shareholders. If guilty this time, need a heavy enough fine to be a real deterrent when the CEO is facing angry shareholders looking at the reason why there was such a loss that year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If found guilty , I hope the fines go well beyond damages and are punitive enough to give CEOs pause before repeating.Sony in particular--it was only 2 + years since their fines part for collusion for price fixing for Beta-type tapes.http : //broadcastengineering.com/news/eu-fines-betacom-1126/ [ broadcastengineering.com ] Sony got an extra dose of fines in that one for obstructing justice with employees shredding documents .
However , fines still were n't enough there since Oops they did it again .
Most large corporations are amoral , they respond only to the shareholders .
If guilty this time , need a heavy enough fine to be a real deterrent when the CEO is facing angry shareholders looking at the reason why there was such a loss that year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If found guilty, I hope the fines go well beyond damages and are punitive enough to give CEOs pause before repeating.Sony in particular--it was only 2+ years since their fines part for collusion for price fixing for Beta-type tapes.http://broadcastengineering.com/news/eu-fines-betacom-1126/ [broadcastengineering.com]Sony got an extra dose of fines in that one for obstructing justice with employees shredding documents.
However, fines still weren't enough there since Oops they did it again.
Most large corporations are amoral, they respond only to the shareholders.
If guilty this time, need a heavy enough fine to be a real deterrent when the CEO is facing angry shareholders looking at the reason why there was such a loss that year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296878</id>
	<title>Turn to big-scale recycling</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1267288560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of the price fixing to get the most diluted depreciation value out of the plant and an unrealistic ROI based on trying to salvage existing old technology so it takes long to flood the market with new technology, maybe big corporation needs to look at other avenues like recycling their own product.  Let's be honest, these big corps already provide us with the end product we want, they should take advantage of recouping some of their manufacturing costs by providing a place we can send in their own product so we can buy their new product.   It'll make them cash and keep a customer base.</p><p>I willingly look for places to properly recycle my aging computer equipment and gadgets for free and they make 100\% profit off whatever they can scrape off it.  I was happy because I made my wife happy getting rid of stuff sitting around and the recyclers was happy they made some cash.  Only makes sense instead of stifling the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of the price fixing to get the most diluted depreciation value out of the plant and an unrealistic ROI based on trying to salvage existing old technology so it takes long to flood the market with new technology , maybe big corporation needs to look at other avenues like recycling their own product .
Let 's be honest , these big corps already provide us with the end product we want , they should take advantage of recouping some of their manufacturing costs by providing a place we can send in their own product so we can buy their new product .
It 'll make them cash and keep a customer base.I willingly look for places to properly recycle my aging computer equipment and gadgets for free and they make 100 \ % profit off whatever they can scrape off it .
I was happy because I made my wife happy getting rid of stuff sitting around and the recyclers was happy they made some cash .
Only makes sense instead of stifling the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of the price fixing to get the most diluted depreciation value out of the plant and an unrealistic ROI based on trying to salvage existing old technology so it takes long to flood the market with new technology, maybe big corporation needs to look at other avenues like recycling their own product.
Let's be honest, these big corps already provide us with the end product we want, they should take advantage of recouping some of their manufacturing costs by providing a place we can send in their own product so we can buy their new product.
It'll make them cash and keep a customer base.I willingly look for places to properly recycle my aging computer equipment and gadgets for free and they make 100\% profit off whatever they can scrape off it.
I was happy because I made my wife happy getting rid of stuff sitting around and the recyclers was happy they made some cash.
Only makes sense instead of stifling the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299864</id>
	<title>Re:Turn to big-scale recycling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267267500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is BS, you can look at eBay anytime (try greenplanetlectronics) - selling used / broken / supposedly recycled electronics / laptops for $100 + working or not, when they were fucking GIVEN (read free) to them for recycling ? LOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is BS , you can look at eBay anytime ( try greenplanetlectronics ) - selling used / broken / supposedly recycled electronics / laptops for $ 100 + working or not , when they were fucking GIVEN ( read free ) to them for recycling ?
LOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is BS, you can look at eBay anytime (try greenplanetlectronics) - selling used / broken / supposedly recycled electronics / laptops for $100 + working or not, when they were fucking GIVEN (read free) to them for recycling ?
LOL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296788</id>
	<title>ZOMG</title>
	<author>lxs</author>
	<datestamp>1267287660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get a decent DVD burner for &euro;20,- nowadays, and that price is still inflated?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get a decent DVD burner for    20,- nowadays , and that price is still inflated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get a decent DVD burner for €20,- nowadays, and that price is still inflated?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297694</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1267295760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be a pretty dismal life if all you could afford was food staples and water. The covert/indirect price-fixing that already happens is bad enough without encouraging capitalist raiders to do it openly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be a pretty dismal life if all you could afford was food staples and water .
The covert/indirect price-fixing that already happens is bad enough without encouraging capitalist raiders to do it openly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be a pretty dismal life if all you could afford was food staples and water.
The covert/indirect price-fixing that already happens is bad enough without encouraging capitalist raiders to do it openly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299976</id>
	<title>Why the plaintiff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267268520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand -- what's the stake in this for a retailer? They're passing the cost to the consumer anyway. How can they show they suffered damages when they make a profit off of each unit sold? This seems like they're just fishing for a settlement award, especially since they jumped on this right after the DOJ started investigating. If the prices are kept high to phase out older products, doesn't the retailer benefit by being able to clear out their inventory of older and soon to be inferior goods?</p><p>Funniest part is when the lawyer talks like six-month product cycles are evidence of conspiracy ("like clockwork"). Uh, ever heard of a product pipeline? Next thing you know, he's going to become real suspicious about all those movies coming out on Fridays. It's almost as if all those movie studios planned for it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand -- what 's the stake in this for a retailer ?
They 're passing the cost to the consumer anyway .
How can they show they suffered damages when they make a profit off of each unit sold ?
This seems like they 're just fishing for a settlement award , especially since they jumped on this right after the DOJ started investigating .
If the prices are kept high to phase out older products , does n't the retailer benefit by being able to clear out their inventory of older and soon to be inferior goods ? Funniest part is when the lawyer talks like six-month product cycles are evidence of conspiracy ( " like clockwork " ) .
Uh , ever heard of a product pipeline ?
Next thing you know , he 's going to become real suspicious about all those movies coming out on Fridays .
It 's almost as if all those movie studios planned for it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand -- what's the stake in this for a retailer?
They're passing the cost to the consumer anyway.
How can they show they suffered damages when they make a profit off of each unit sold?
This seems like they're just fishing for a settlement award, especially since they jumped on this right after the DOJ started investigating.
If the prices are kept high to phase out older products, doesn't the retailer benefit by being able to clear out their inventory of older and soon to be inferior goods?Funniest part is when the lawyer talks like six-month product cycles are evidence of conspiracy ("like clockwork").
Uh, ever heard of a product pipeline?
Next thing you know, he's going to become real suspicious about all those movies coming out on Fridays.
It's almost as if all those movie studios planned for it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31302574</id>
	<title>Re:Price fixing should be allowed, IMO</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1267291680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically, back when the US government fixed airline prices, they did start competing on quality.  That led to the government regulating stuff like what kinds of food could be served, and on what kind of dishes.  Heaven forbid that maybe a better company drive a worse one out of business or something!</p><p>The airline industry is a perfect example of oversupply - every time a company is on the verge of collapse the government bails them out.  That costs taxpayers money and provides little benefit.  If they just let one or two go down the rest would be much more stable.  You don't let it get to the point where there are only 3 or anything, but right now there are just too many.</p><p>And when companies price-fix, don't you think they'll go ahead and quality-fix as well?  The whole point is that they DON'T want to compete with each other.  They just chop the market up percentage-wise and everybody takes their cut - just like a mob.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , back when the US government fixed airline prices , they did start competing on quality .
That led to the government regulating stuff like what kinds of food could be served , and on what kind of dishes .
Heaven forbid that maybe a better company drive a worse one out of business or something ! The airline industry is a perfect example of oversupply - every time a company is on the verge of collapse the government bails them out .
That costs taxpayers money and provides little benefit .
If they just let one or two go down the rest would be much more stable .
You do n't let it get to the point where there are only 3 or anything , but right now there are just too many.And when companies price-fix , do n't you think they 'll go ahead and quality-fix as well ?
The whole point is that they DO N'T want to compete with each other .
They just chop the market up percentage-wise and everybody takes their cut - just like a mob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, back when the US government fixed airline prices, they did start competing on quality.
That led to the government regulating stuff like what kinds of food could be served, and on what kind of dishes.
Heaven forbid that maybe a better company drive a worse one out of business or something!The airline industry is a perfect example of oversupply - every time a company is on the verge of collapse the government bails them out.
That costs taxpayers money and provides little benefit.
If they just let one or two go down the rest would be much more stable.
You don't let it get to the point where there are only 3 or anything, but right now there are just too many.And when companies price-fix, don't you think they'll go ahead and quality-fix as well?
The whole point is that they DON'T want to compete with each other.
They just chop the market up percentage-wise and everybody takes their cut - just like a mob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31305904</id>
	<title>Re:No Stereotypes please</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267373940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395584/" title="imdb.com">Otis? Is that you?</a> [imdb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Otis ?
Is that you ?
[ imdb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otis?
Is that you?
[imdb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297318</id>
	<title>Re:"New and improved" posting technology.</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1267292820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TV is squarely in the sights of the Internet, as local stations get disintermediated.  Radio is very special; TV buggy-whipped.it out of the major home entertainment slot a long time ago, and so it has adapted to providing news, opinion, and background music for cars and workplaces.  The equipment is ridiculously cheap and portable.  Production costs are very low - your local TV station can't afford to put together much more than the news and maybe a local culture show, so it can't compete with major network offerings, but you can have a successful local radio host for cheap, and he may be as good as a lot of the syndicated stuff. Ergo, you can capitalize on local content in a way that's hard to do with TV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TV is squarely in the sights of the Internet , as local stations get disintermediated .
Radio is very special ; TV buggy-whipped.it out of the major home entertainment slot a long time ago , and so it has adapted to providing news , opinion , and background music for cars and workplaces .
The equipment is ridiculously cheap and portable .
Production costs are very low - your local TV station ca n't afford to put together much more than the news and maybe a local culture show , so it ca n't compete with major network offerings , but you can have a successful local radio host for cheap , and he may be as good as a lot of the syndicated stuff .
Ergo , you can capitalize on local content in a way that 's hard to do with TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV is squarely in the sights of the Internet, as local stations get disintermediated.
Radio is very special; TV buggy-whipped.it out of the major home entertainment slot a long time ago, and so it has adapted to providing news, opinion, and background music for cars and workplaces.
The equipment is ridiculously cheap and portable.
Production costs are very low - your local TV station can't afford to put together much more than the news and maybe a local culture show, so it can't compete with major network offerings, but you can have a successful local radio host for cheap, and he may be as good as a lot of the syndicated stuff.
Ergo, you can capitalize on local content in a way that's hard to do with TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297544</id>
	<title>Re:No Stereotypes please</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1267295040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Stereotypically, everyone hates the Americans for being stupid and hateful and Sterotypically Americans are xenophobes, and yet everyone seems to be doing business with us when it's profitable."</p><p>Shit, we killed over a million Vietnamese a few decades back, and now Intel had a chip fab there. Given the overall results, the US got all the capitalist outcomes it wanted, got Viet Nam as a barrier to Chinese expansion (see 'Sino-Vietnamese War"), and did it without winning the war.<br>Practicality and profit motivate sensible people quite strongly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Stereotypically , everyone hates the Americans for being stupid and hateful and Sterotypically Americans are xenophobes , and yet everyone seems to be doing business with us when it 's profitable .
" Shit , we killed over a million Vietnamese a few decades back , and now Intel had a chip fab there .
Given the overall results , the US got all the capitalist outcomes it wanted , got Viet Nam as a barrier to Chinese expansion ( see 'Sino-Vietnamese War " ) , and did it without winning the war.Practicality and profit motivate sensible people quite strongly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Stereotypically, everyone hates the Americans for being stupid and hateful and Sterotypically Americans are xenophobes, and yet everyone seems to be doing business with us when it's profitable.
"Shit, we killed over a million Vietnamese a few decades back, and now Intel had a chip fab there.
Given the overall results, the US got all the capitalist outcomes it wanted, got Viet Nam as a barrier to Chinese expansion (see 'Sino-Vietnamese War"), and did it without winning the war.Practicality and profit motivate sensible people quite strongly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31301092</id>
	<title>Re:No Stereotypes please</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1267279380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People the world over should not draw conclusions from the media. If I were to use the US media as my primary source of information, I would think that some of these so-called other countries are simply regions of America that I've not been to</p></div><p>They're not yet, but it seems you're working on it really hard.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People the world over should not draw conclusions from the media .
If I were to use the US media as my primary source of information , I would think that some of these so-called other countries are simply regions of America that I 've not been toThey 're not yet , but it seems you 're working on it really hard .
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People the world over should not draw conclusions from the media.
If I were to use the US media as my primary source of information, I would think that some of these so-called other countries are simply regions of America that I've not been toThey're not yet, but it seems you're working on it really hard.
:p
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296876</id>
	<title>Uh!</title>
	<author>voodoo cheesecake</author>
	<datestamp>1267288500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they've made enough profit so far, then they have the resources to retool a factory and keep rolling. I seriously doubt they wait until they meet at trade organization forums to discuss price fixing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 've made enough profit so far , then they have the resources to retool a factory and keep rolling .
I seriously doubt they wait until they meet at trade organization forums to discuss price fixing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they've made enough profit so far, then they have the resources to retool a factory and keep rolling.
I seriously doubt they wait until they meet at trade organization forums to discuss price fixing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297514</id>
	<title>Re:No Stereotypes please</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1267294860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ADM conspired with Japanese and European corporations to fix prices. I know it's true from watching The Informant!</htmltext>
<tokenext>ADM conspired with Japanese and European corporations to fix prices .
I know it 's true from watching The Informant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ADM conspired with Japanese and European corporations to fix prices.
I know it's true from watching The Informant!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299376</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds Familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267262940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I'm a fan of someone taking down the "corporatists" this seems like a VERY valid argument. Compare this to Internet Companies and Monopoly Phone Networks, who charge us and their competition, for using lines that the taxpayer paid for, and dragging their heals on innovation because they are perfectly happy charging you $50 a month for 1 meg DSL downloads, $50 a month for a home phone and not telling you you don't need a home phone, and about $100 a month for that Cell phone, which is ONLY starting to add tethering because startups are offering 3G internet options (Clear.com comes to mind).</p><p>We have so may more problems with companies that have one pipe into the house, getting monopolies, and paying local governments to cover up their price fixing. I pay 5 times more for Natural Gas in my home coming from a choice of 7 different private companies, who all have various strange fees and taxes and amazingly, have just about the same 5X cost as it used to be when the inefficient STATE was selling me natural gas.</p><p>Do we ask Adobe if they are Price Fixing their Designer Suites to $1600? No. They are the only one's selling Adobe Software.</p><p>If the Manufacturers are fixing prices on cheap electronic components because they don't want to go bankrupt -- let's not worry about it if it's in a foreign nation. PRICE FIXING, should concentrate on LOCAL business, and PRICE DUMPING should be our only worry from foreign manufacturers. If Toyota want's to charge $100,000 for a car -- then maybe we can get someone to build them in the US again.</p><p>Did anyone notice that Toyota closed a plant in California to move back to Japan, or that Whirlpool is shuttering a plant with 15,000 jobs to move to Mexico? If they don't raise their prices -- we should be charging a Tariff. Seriously folks, we are in huge danger of losing our Middle Class in this country because nothing is putting money in the pockets for people who WORK at making things. This is the opposite of what we should be concerned with. You don't NEED the new flat-panel TV, so why not make it more expensive so that a local competitor could rise up and sell you one cheaper?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I 'm a fan of someone taking down the " corporatists " this seems like a VERY valid argument .
Compare this to Internet Companies and Monopoly Phone Networks , who charge us and their competition , for using lines that the taxpayer paid for , and dragging their heals on innovation because they are perfectly happy charging you $ 50 a month for 1 meg DSL downloads , $ 50 a month for a home phone and not telling you you do n't need a home phone , and about $ 100 a month for that Cell phone , which is ONLY starting to add tethering because startups are offering 3G internet options ( Clear.com comes to mind ) .We have so may more problems with companies that have one pipe into the house , getting monopolies , and paying local governments to cover up their price fixing .
I pay 5 times more for Natural Gas in my home coming from a choice of 7 different private companies , who all have various strange fees and taxes and amazingly , have just about the same 5X cost as it used to be when the inefficient STATE was selling me natural gas.Do we ask Adobe if they are Price Fixing their Designer Suites to $ 1600 ?
No. They are the only one 's selling Adobe Software.If the Manufacturers are fixing prices on cheap electronic components because they do n't want to go bankrupt -- let 's not worry about it if it 's in a foreign nation .
PRICE FIXING , should concentrate on LOCAL business , and PRICE DUMPING should be our only worry from foreign manufacturers .
If Toyota want 's to charge $ 100,000 for a car -- then maybe we can get someone to build them in the US again.Did anyone notice that Toyota closed a plant in California to move back to Japan , or that Whirlpool is shuttering a plant with 15,000 jobs to move to Mexico ?
If they do n't raise their prices -- we should be charging a Tariff .
Seriously folks , we are in huge danger of losing our Middle Class in this country because nothing is putting money in the pockets for people who WORK at making things .
This is the opposite of what we should be concerned with .
You do n't NEED the new flat-panel TV , so why not make it more expensive so that a local competitor could rise up and sell you one cheaper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I'm a fan of someone taking down the "corporatists" this seems like a VERY valid argument.
Compare this to Internet Companies and Monopoly Phone Networks, who charge us and their competition, for using lines that the taxpayer paid for, and dragging their heals on innovation because they are perfectly happy charging you $50 a month for 1 meg DSL downloads, $50 a month for a home phone and not telling you you don't need a home phone, and about $100 a month for that Cell phone, which is ONLY starting to add tethering because startups are offering 3G internet options (Clear.com comes to mind).We have so may more problems with companies that have one pipe into the house, getting monopolies, and paying local governments to cover up their price fixing.
I pay 5 times more for Natural Gas in my home coming from a choice of 7 different private companies, who all have various strange fees and taxes and amazingly, have just about the same 5X cost as it used to be when the inefficient STATE was selling me natural gas.Do we ask Adobe if they are Price Fixing their Designer Suites to $1600?
No. They are the only one's selling Adobe Software.If the Manufacturers are fixing prices on cheap electronic components because they don't want to go bankrupt -- let's not worry about it if it's in a foreign nation.
PRICE FIXING, should concentrate on LOCAL business, and PRICE DUMPING should be our only worry from foreign manufacturers.
If Toyota want's to charge $100,000 for a car -- then maybe we can get someone to build them in the US again.Did anyone notice that Toyota closed a plant in California to move back to Japan, or that Whirlpool is shuttering a plant with 15,000 jobs to move to Mexico?
If they don't raise their prices -- we should be charging a Tariff.
Seriously folks, we are in huge danger of losing our Middle Class in this country because nothing is putting money in the pockets for people who WORK at making things.
This is the opposite of what we should be concerned with.
You don't NEED the new flat-panel TV, so why not make it more expensive so that a local competitor could rise up and sell you one cheaper?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296914</id>
	<title>Re:"New and improved" posting technology.</title>
	<author>Daengbo</author>
	<datestamp>1267289040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Point noted although I'm sure people have already noticed that the internet hasn't buggy whipped either TV or radio. Also change even new change doesn't happen overnight.</p></div><p>Give it time, young <a href="http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Padawan" title="wikia.com" rel="nofollow">Padawan</a> [wikia.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Point noted although I 'm sure people have already noticed that the internet has n't buggy whipped either TV or radio .
Also change even new change does n't happen overnight.Give it time , young Padawan [ wikia.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point noted although I'm sure people have already noticed that the internet hasn't buggy whipped either TV or radio.
Also change even new change doesn't happen overnight.Give it time, young Padawan [wikia.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31300058</id>
	<title>Re:Price fixing should be allowed, IMO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267269300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You toy about with prices like you're god, but really what fixed prices mean is poor people can't afford airline flights. You act like it's up to some disembodied person (you, me?) to make a decision to set prices on moral grounds. But you would get your precious quality airlines, and the poor folks would not be able to afford to fly. These damn poor people keep wanting airlines to compete on price! Give me my on flight movie and meal. Dammit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You toy about with prices like you 're god , but really what fixed prices mean is poor people ca n't afford airline flights .
You act like it 's up to some disembodied person ( you , me ?
) to make a decision to set prices on moral grounds .
But you would get your precious quality airlines , and the poor folks would not be able to afford to fly .
These damn poor people keep wanting airlines to compete on price !
Give me my on flight movie and meal .
Dammit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You toy about with prices like you're god, but really what fixed prices mean is poor people can't afford airline flights.
You act like it's up to some disembodied person (you, me?
) to make a decision to set prices on moral grounds.
But you would get your precious quality airlines, and the poor folks would not be able to afford to fly.
These damn poor people keep wanting airlines to compete on price!
Give me my on flight movie and meal.
Dammit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299062</id>
	<title>Re:Is there anything to this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267303800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neither side would outright give something up to benefit the other, but a collusion to maintain a status quo that's already profitable to all parties? They'd do that in a heartbeat.</p><p>And currently it's in the best interest of the CD, DVD, and Blu-ray makers to keep the cheap drives and media cheap and the expensive drives and media expensive. Because if the blu-ray drives and discs suddenly got cheap, it'd destroy all three business plans; everyone would buy the cheap bluray stuff, meaning the makers of cheap DVD stuff and pricey bluray stuff would both lose sales.</p><p>It's doubly in Sony's interests to keep standalone blu ray players expensive - because then more people look at the $250 standalone player and the $300 PS3 and buy the PS3. If standalone bluray players were $60, Sony would lose a nontrivial number of PS3 sales. And the makers of $60 standalone DVD players would also lose a nontrivial number of sales. Likewise if the prices of computer bluray burners and media dropped enough, bluray would wipe out a lot of the DVD burner market. (Who wouldn't choose to pay twice the price of a 4GB disc to burn 25GB?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither side would outright give something up to benefit the other , but a collusion to maintain a status quo that 's already profitable to all parties ?
They 'd do that in a heartbeat.And currently it 's in the best interest of the CD , DVD , and Blu-ray makers to keep the cheap drives and media cheap and the expensive drives and media expensive .
Because if the blu-ray drives and discs suddenly got cheap , it 'd destroy all three business plans ; everyone would buy the cheap bluray stuff , meaning the makers of cheap DVD stuff and pricey bluray stuff would both lose sales.It 's doubly in Sony 's interests to keep standalone blu ray players expensive - because then more people look at the $ 250 standalone player and the $ 300 PS3 and buy the PS3 .
If standalone bluray players were $ 60 , Sony would lose a nontrivial number of PS3 sales .
And the makers of $ 60 standalone DVD players would also lose a nontrivial number of sales .
Likewise if the prices of computer bluray burners and media dropped enough , bluray would wipe out a lot of the DVD burner market .
( Who would n't choose to pay twice the price of a 4GB disc to burn 25GB ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither side would outright give something up to benefit the other, but a collusion to maintain a status quo that's already profitable to all parties?
They'd do that in a heartbeat.And currently it's in the best interest of the CD, DVD, and Blu-ray makers to keep the cheap drives and media cheap and the expensive drives and media expensive.
Because if the blu-ray drives and discs suddenly got cheap, it'd destroy all three business plans; everyone would buy the cheap bluray stuff, meaning the makers of cheap DVD stuff and pricey bluray stuff would both lose sales.It's doubly in Sony's interests to keep standalone blu ray players expensive - because then more people look at the $250 standalone player and the $300 PS3 and buy the PS3.
If standalone bluray players were $60, Sony would lose a nontrivial number of PS3 sales.
And the makers of $60 standalone DVD players would also lose a nontrivial number of sales.
Likewise if the prices of computer bluray burners and media dropped enough, bluray would wipe out a lot of the DVD burner market.
(Who wouldn't choose to pay twice the price of a 4GB disc to burn 25GB?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31301284</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds Familiar</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1267280820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You ask good questions. It will be fun to think them through:</p><p> <i>this seems like a VERY valid argument.</i> </p><p>Very agreed. My corporatist and capitalist friends are very smart, and they do not reach their conclusions lightly. I do belittle them for their conclusions, because they are wrong. But the argument has a lot of rational merit -- it just doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.</p><p> <i>Do we ask Adobe if they are Price Fixing their Designer Suites to $1600? No. They are the only one's selling Adobe Software.</i> </p><p>Copyright is a monopoly, and it leads to monopoly rents. That is why The Constitution specifies that the term must be limited. Some, including myself, argue that copyright should exist, but should have a duration more like Jefferson and the other Founders intended (as noted by the period of time they actually chose). Those who hold that view are, in effect, arguing that the amount of price fixing that we allow Adobe is too great -- but also that it should exist to act as a guarantee of a limited additional opportunity to profit on goods which can be copied for an arbitrarily low price.</p><p>The same does not necessarily hold for goods which have a significantly non-zero marginal cost of production (ie: if each unit has a significant material cost relative to its market value). For such goods, the free market laws of supply and demand are believed to be more efficient than the government at setting the price. Investors provide risk capital -- knowing that it may be lost -- in relation to their belief that they can build a competitive business. Their privilege to have such an opportunity is acquired by virtue of their willingness to risk the capital. That is, the fact that their capital is at risk is not a reason to pity them and give them a monopoly -- it is the nature of risk capital and the natural cost of entry to a capitalist free market.</p><p>When the government removes that risk, the capital provider loses his inhibition to gambling. The result is a bubble/crash cycle which is disruptive to long-term investment. This inhibition to long-term investment is self-catalyzing -- as long term investment becomes more precarious, short term investment (relatively speaking) is elevated in value. Short term investing, in turn, increases the instability of capital markets, and so the cycle continues. (roughly until the velocity of money is insufficient to continue the cycle)</p><p>Wow -- that was a helluva digression, but I enjoyed it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p> <i>PRICE FIXING, should concentrate on LOCAL business, and PRICE DUMPING should be our only worry from foreign manufacturers.</i> </p><p>I tend to disagree with nationalist policies. (whew -- I could go on a digression here even bigger than the one above, but I will refrain)</p><p>Let us assume that we want to act nationalistically, for the sake of argument.</p><p>Price dumping from foreign companies means we can buy more stuff for the same number of dollars. That is generally a good thing. Overconsumption is a bad thing, but that is more a matter of our monetary policy (our interest rates are too low, too often) than of foreign nations' willingness to sell us stuff below cost. Consider if the middle east were "dumping" crude oil in the US market -- that would be a good thing, right? Same with all goods.</p><p>There is the caveat of the inefficiency of the market. Since the inputs of production are not frictionless, there is always at least some barrier to entry. In addition there are fiat barriers to entry, from zoning to patents. Because of these things, short term dumping followed by gouging can be inefficient to economies -- but this is true regardless of whether the dumper is domestic or foreign. In the foreign case, the monopoly rents charged during the gouging phase exit the nation (again, assuming we are taking a nationalist approach), so it is worse than internal dumping. But internal dumping is also inefficient. In fact, in the internal dumping case, dumping is inefficient regardless of whether gouging occurs -- if it does not, t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ask good questions .
It will be fun to think them through : this seems like a VERY valid argument .
Very agreed .
My corporatist and capitalist friends are very smart , and they do not reach their conclusions lightly .
I do belittle them for their conclusions , because they are wrong .
But the argument has a lot of rational merit -- it just does n't hold up to close scrutiny .
Do we ask Adobe if they are Price Fixing their Designer Suites to $ 1600 ?
No. They are the only one 's selling Adobe Software .
Copyright is a monopoly , and it leads to monopoly rents .
That is why The Constitution specifies that the term must be limited .
Some , including myself , argue that copyright should exist , but should have a duration more like Jefferson and the other Founders intended ( as noted by the period of time they actually chose ) .
Those who hold that view are , in effect , arguing that the amount of price fixing that we allow Adobe is too great -- but also that it should exist to act as a guarantee of a limited additional opportunity to profit on goods which can be copied for an arbitrarily low price.The same does not necessarily hold for goods which have a significantly non-zero marginal cost of production ( ie : if each unit has a significant material cost relative to its market value ) .
For such goods , the free market laws of supply and demand are believed to be more efficient than the government at setting the price .
Investors provide risk capital -- knowing that it may be lost -- in relation to their belief that they can build a competitive business .
Their privilege to have such an opportunity is acquired by virtue of their willingness to risk the capital .
That is , the fact that their capital is at risk is not a reason to pity them and give them a monopoly -- it is the nature of risk capital and the natural cost of entry to a capitalist free market.When the government removes that risk , the capital provider loses his inhibition to gambling .
The result is a bubble/crash cycle which is disruptive to long-term investment .
This inhibition to long-term investment is self-catalyzing -- as long term investment becomes more precarious , short term investment ( relatively speaking ) is elevated in value .
Short term investing , in turn , increases the instability of capital markets , and so the cycle continues .
( roughly until the velocity of money is insufficient to continue the cycle ) Wow -- that was a helluva digression , but I enjoyed it .
: ) PRICE FIXING , should concentrate on LOCAL business , and PRICE DUMPING should be our only worry from foreign manufacturers .
I tend to disagree with nationalist policies .
( whew -- I could go on a digression here even bigger than the one above , but I will refrain ) Let us assume that we want to act nationalistically , for the sake of argument.Price dumping from foreign companies means we can buy more stuff for the same number of dollars .
That is generally a good thing .
Overconsumption is a bad thing , but that is more a matter of our monetary policy ( our interest rates are too low , too often ) than of foreign nations ' willingness to sell us stuff below cost .
Consider if the middle east were " dumping " crude oil in the US market -- that would be a good thing , right ?
Same with all goods.There is the caveat of the inefficiency of the market .
Since the inputs of production are not frictionless , there is always at least some barrier to entry .
In addition there are fiat barriers to entry , from zoning to patents .
Because of these things , short term dumping followed by gouging can be inefficient to economies -- but this is true regardless of whether the dumper is domestic or foreign .
In the foreign case , the monopoly rents charged during the gouging phase exit the nation ( again , assuming we are taking a nationalist approach ) , so it is worse than internal dumping .
But internal dumping is also inefficient .
In fact , in the internal dumping case , dumping is inefficient regardless of whether gouging occurs -- if it does not , t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You ask good questions.
It will be fun to think them through: this seems like a VERY valid argument.
Very agreed.
My corporatist and capitalist friends are very smart, and they do not reach their conclusions lightly.
I do belittle them for their conclusions, because they are wrong.
But the argument has a lot of rational merit -- it just doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
Do we ask Adobe if they are Price Fixing their Designer Suites to $1600?
No. They are the only one's selling Adobe Software.
Copyright is a monopoly, and it leads to monopoly rents.
That is why The Constitution specifies that the term must be limited.
Some, including myself, argue that copyright should exist, but should have a duration more like Jefferson and the other Founders intended (as noted by the period of time they actually chose).
Those who hold that view are, in effect, arguing that the amount of price fixing that we allow Adobe is too great -- but also that it should exist to act as a guarantee of a limited additional opportunity to profit on goods which can be copied for an arbitrarily low price.The same does not necessarily hold for goods which have a significantly non-zero marginal cost of production (ie: if each unit has a significant material cost relative to its market value).
For such goods, the free market laws of supply and demand are believed to be more efficient than the government at setting the price.
Investors provide risk capital -- knowing that it may be lost -- in relation to their belief that they can build a competitive business.
Their privilege to have such an opportunity is acquired by virtue of their willingness to risk the capital.
That is, the fact that their capital is at risk is not a reason to pity them and give them a monopoly -- it is the nature of risk capital and the natural cost of entry to a capitalist free market.When the government removes that risk, the capital provider loses his inhibition to gambling.
The result is a bubble/crash cycle which is disruptive to long-term investment.
This inhibition to long-term investment is self-catalyzing -- as long term investment becomes more precarious, short term investment (relatively speaking) is elevated in value.
Short term investing, in turn, increases the instability of capital markets, and so the cycle continues.
(roughly until the velocity of money is insufficient to continue the cycle)Wow -- that was a helluva digression, but I enjoyed it.
:) PRICE FIXING, should concentrate on LOCAL business, and PRICE DUMPING should be our only worry from foreign manufacturers.
I tend to disagree with nationalist policies.
(whew -- I could go on a digression here even bigger than the one above, but I will refrain)Let us assume that we want to act nationalistically, for the sake of argument.Price dumping from foreign companies means we can buy more stuff for the same number of dollars.
That is generally a good thing.
Overconsumption is a bad thing, but that is more a matter of our monetary policy (our interest rates are too low, too often) than of foreign nations' willingness to sell us stuff below cost.
Consider if the middle east were "dumping" crude oil in the US market -- that would be a good thing, right?
Same with all goods.There is the caveat of the inefficiency of the market.
Since the inputs of production are not frictionless, there is always at least some barrier to entry.
In addition there are fiat barriers to entry, from zoning to patents.
Because of these things, short term dumping followed by gouging can be inefficient to economies -- but this is true regardless of whether the dumper is domestic or foreign.
In the foreign case, the monopoly rents charged during the gouging phase exit the nation (again, assuming we are taking a nationalist approach), so it is worse than internal dumping.
But internal dumping is also inefficient.
In fact, in the internal dumping case, dumping is inefficient regardless of whether gouging occurs -- if it does not, t</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31303882</id>
	<title>Re:No Stereotypes please</title>
	<author>nobodie</author>
	<datestamp>1267348980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The latest generation of Koreans are envious and imitative of Japanese culture. Japan is no longer an enemy for Asians of the modern world. Japan is also a source for ideas, products to be copied and reverse engineered today for the parents of the gen whatever crowd that I teach. This is also true here in China where the older generation watches the sorriest war movies you can imagine (we are talking production, script, everything, i mean pitiful excuses for motion pictures) with total involvement and the current gen is online checking out Japanese porno and TV shows. So, both ideas can be exemplified if one chooses, but the reality is that in the near future there will be no war memory. Nanjing, comfort women, all that will be about the same as Genghis Khan for this generation. I speak from teaching university level students of both cultures here in China where they are divided by culture and language but still coexist fairly happily as long as the money keeps flowing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The latest generation of Koreans are envious and imitative of Japanese culture .
Japan is no longer an enemy for Asians of the modern world .
Japan is also a source for ideas , products to be copied and reverse engineered today for the parents of the gen whatever crowd that I teach .
This is also true here in China where the older generation watches the sorriest war movies you can imagine ( we are talking production , script , everything , i mean pitiful excuses for motion pictures ) with total involvement and the current gen is online checking out Japanese porno and TV shows .
So , both ideas can be exemplified if one chooses , but the reality is that in the near future there will be no war memory .
Nanjing , comfort women , all that will be about the same as Genghis Khan for this generation .
I speak from teaching university level students of both cultures here in China where they are divided by culture and language but still coexist fairly happily as long as the money keeps flowing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The latest generation of Koreans are envious and imitative of Japanese culture.
Japan is no longer an enemy for Asians of the modern world.
Japan is also a source for ideas, products to be copied and reverse engineered today for the parents of the gen whatever crowd that I teach.
This is also true here in China where the older generation watches the sorriest war movies you can imagine (we are talking production, script, everything, i mean pitiful excuses for motion pictures) with total involvement and the current gen is online checking out Japanese porno and TV shows.
So, both ideas can be exemplified if one chooses, but the reality is that in the near future there will be no war memory.
Nanjing, comfort women, all that will be about the same as Genghis Khan for this generation.
I speak from teaching university level students of both cultures here in China where they are divided by culture and language but still coexist fairly happily as long as the money keeps flowing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870</id>
	<title>"New and improved" posting technology.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267288440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You can't have a technology destroy the business,' said the attorney representing the plaintiff. 'If you fire up a big fab plant with CRT tubes, and the next generation technology destroys it, then you have a big fab plant manufacturing buggy whips. So they have to make sure the price points for these [newer] technologies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... don't destroy existing markets.'"</p><p>Point noted although I'm sure people have already noticed that the internet hasn't buggy whipped either TV or radio. Also change even new change doesn't happen overnight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You ca n't have a technology destroy the business, ' said the attorney representing the plaintiff .
'If you fire up a big fab plant with CRT tubes , and the next generation technology destroys it , then you have a big fab plant manufacturing buggy whips .
So they have to make sure the price points for these [ newer ] technologies ... do n't destroy existing markets .
' " Point noted although I 'm sure people have already noticed that the internet has n't buggy whipped either TV or radio .
Also change even new change does n't happen overnight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You can't have a technology destroy the business,' said the attorney representing the plaintiff.
'If you fire up a big fab plant with CRT tubes, and the next generation technology destroys it, then you have a big fab plant manufacturing buggy whips.
So they have to make sure the price points for these [newer] technologies ... don't destroy existing markets.
'"Point noted although I'm sure people have already noticed that the internet hasn't buggy whipped either TV or radio.
Also change even new change doesn't happen overnight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297024</id>
	<title>Re:ZOMG</title>
	<author>multisync</author>
	<datestamp>1267290300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You can get a decent DVD burner for 20,- nowadays, and that price is still inflated?</p></div></blockquote><p>I didn't read the article either, but I would guess from the summary they are complaining about the prices of Blu-Ray drives and other new technology. They're all tooled to produce CD and DVD drives, and they don't want the new tech to supplant their existing revenue source.</p><p>But, as I said, I didn't read the article so I could be wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get a decent DVD burner for 20,- nowadays , and that price is still inflated ? I did n't read the article either , but I would guess from the summary they are complaining about the prices of Blu-Ray drives and other new technology .
They 're all tooled to produce CD and DVD drives , and they do n't want the new tech to supplant their existing revenue source.But , as I said , I did n't read the article so I could be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get a decent DVD burner for 20,- nowadays, and that price is still inflated?I didn't read the article either, but I would guess from the summary they are complaining about the prices of Blu-Ray drives and other new technology.
They're all tooled to produce CD and DVD drives, and they don't want the new tech to supplant their existing revenue source.But, as I said, I didn't read the article so I could be wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814</id>
	<title>Is there anything to this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267287960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I see in the story is innuendo; no hint of any actual evidence.</p><p>It's also somewhat hard to believe that the Korean conglomerates are conspiring with the Japanese ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I see in the story is innuendo ; no hint of any actual evidence.It 's also somewhat hard to believe that the Korean conglomerates are conspiring with the Japanese ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I see in the story is innuendo; no hint of any actual evidence.It's also somewhat hard to believe that the Korean conglomerates are conspiring with the Japanese ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296982</id>
	<title>DRAM situation points the other way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267289880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.theedgesingapore.com/component/content/1312/1312.html?task=view&amp;start=2</p><p>"Swayed by cheap loans and soaring DRAM prices in 2005, Taiwan&rsquo;s DRAM makers went on an expansion spree, building multi-billion dollar fabrication plants (fabs) and amassing a mountain of debt.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Prices corrected sharply, with benchmark DRAM spot prices tumbling by over two-thirds in 2007. This year, they have continued to fall, nearly halving in value to reach historical lows. Memory chips are now selling at about 50\% below the Taiwan makers&rsquo; cash costs, according to Citigroup estimates."</p><p>If a disaster like this can happen, it points to competition not being a problem at least in the DRAM industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.theedgesingapore.com/component/content/1312/1312.html ? task = view&amp;start = 2 " Swayed by cheap loans and soaring DRAM prices in 2005 , Taiwan    s DRAM makers went on an expansion spree , building multi-billion dollar fabrication plants ( fabs ) and amassing a mountain of debt .
... Prices corrected sharply , with benchmark DRAM spot prices tumbling by over two-thirds in 2007 .
This year , they have continued to fall , nearly halving in value to reach historical lows .
Memory chips are now selling at about 50 \ % below the Taiwan makers    cash costs , according to Citigroup estimates .
" If a disaster like this can happen , it points to competition not being a problem at least in the DRAM industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.theedgesingapore.com/component/content/1312/1312.html?task=view&amp;start=2"Swayed by cheap loans and soaring DRAM prices in 2005, Taiwan’s DRAM makers went on an expansion spree, building multi-billion dollar fabrication plants (fabs) and amassing a mountain of debt.
... Prices corrected sharply, with benchmark DRAM spot prices tumbling by over two-thirds in 2007.
This year, they have continued to fall, nearly halving in value to reach historical lows.
Memory chips are now selling at about 50\% below the Taiwan makers’ cash costs, according to Citigroup estimates.
"If a disaster like this can happen, it points to competition not being a problem at least in the DRAM industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418</id>
	<title>Price fixing should be allowed, IMO</title>
	<author>mc6809e</author>
	<datestamp>1267293780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Competition for the lowest price often leads to lower quality. If firms were allowed to agree to prices, then they could focus on competing on quality instead of on price.</p><p>The airline industry in the US is a great example. Under regulation, the federal government essentially fixed prices. The airlines then did all they could to provide a higher quality experience to get customers.</p><p>The other benefit of price fixing is stability. Firms have a better idea what the future holds in terms of revenue and competition. Without price fixing, firms battle with one another until come firms are forced into bankruptcy or are swallowed up by other firms. Jobs are lost. Again, the same thing happened in the airline industry.</p><p>Of course the downside is higher prices. But suppose higher prices make an industry much more profitable than it might otherwise be. Wouldn't that draw in more competitors? Price fixing only works if prices stay low enough that investors don't see opportunity. Considering the huge amount of investment in electronics and the rock bottom prices for all sorts of devices, it looks to me like price fixing hasn't stifled competition or investment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Competition for the lowest price often leads to lower quality .
If firms were allowed to agree to prices , then they could focus on competing on quality instead of on price.The airline industry in the US is a great example .
Under regulation , the federal government essentially fixed prices .
The airlines then did all they could to provide a higher quality experience to get customers.The other benefit of price fixing is stability .
Firms have a better idea what the future holds in terms of revenue and competition .
Without price fixing , firms battle with one another until come firms are forced into bankruptcy or are swallowed up by other firms .
Jobs are lost .
Again , the same thing happened in the airline industry.Of course the downside is higher prices .
But suppose higher prices make an industry much more profitable than it might otherwise be .
Would n't that draw in more competitors ?
Price fixing only works if prices stay low enough that investors do n't see opportunity .
Considering the huge amount of investment in electronics and the rock bottom prices for all sorts of devices , it looks to me like price fixing has n't stifled competition or investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Competition for the lowest price often leads to lower quality.
If firms were allowed to agree to prices, then they could focus on competing on quality instead of on price.The airline industry in the US is a great example.
Under regulation, the federal government essentially fixed prices.
The airlines then did all they could to provide a higher quality experience to get customers.The other benefit of price fixing is stability.
Firms have a better idea what the future holds in terms of revenue and competition.
Without price fixing, firms battle with one another until come firms are forced into bankruptcy or are swallowed up by other firms.
Jobs are lost.
Again, the same thing happened in the airline industry.Of course the downside is higher prices.
But suppose higher prices make an industry much more profitable than it might otherwise be.
Wouldn't that draw in more competitors?
Price fixing only works if prices stay low enough that investors don't see opportunity.
Considering the huge amount of investment in electronics and the rock bottom prices for all sorts of devices, it looks to me like price fixing hasn't stifled competition or investment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296860</id>
	<title>No Stereotypes please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267288380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All I see in the story is innuendo; no hint of any actual evidence.</i></p><p><i>It's also somewhat hard to believe that the Korean conglomerates are conspiring with the Japanese ones.</i></p><p>I agree with you about your first assertion, but trying to support your assertion with stereotypes is silly.</p><p>Human beings the world over speak the language of money.  Supposed "cultural enemies" time and time again over history have colluded to make more money.  Don't dismiss this as unlikely simply because Koreans and Japanese don't get along all the time.</p><p>Stereotypically, everyone hates the Americans for being stupid and hateful and Sterotypically Americans are xenophobes, and yet everyone seems to be doing business with us when it's profitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I see in the story is innuendo ; no hint of any actual evidence.It 's also somewhat hard to believe that the Korean conglomerates are conspiring with the Japanese ones.I agree with you about your first assertion , but trying to support your assertion with stereotypes is silly.Human beings the world over speak the language of money .
Supposed " cultural enemies " time and time again over history have colluded to make more money .
Do n't dismiss this as unlikely simply because Koreans and Japanese do n't get along all the time.Stereotypically , everyone hates the Americans for being stupid and hateful and Sterotypically Americans are xenophobes , and yet everyone seems to be doing business with us when it 's profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I see in the story is innuendo; no hint of any actual evidence.It's also somewhat hard to believe that the Korean conglomerates are conspiring with the Japanese ones.I agree with you about your first assertion, but trying to support your assertion with stereotypes is silly.Human beings the world over speak the language of money.
Supposed "cultural enemies" time and time again over history have colluded to make more money.
Don't dismiss this as unlikely simply because Koreans and Japanese don't get along all the time.Stereotypically, everyone hates the Americans for being stupid and hateful and Sterotypically Americans are xenophobes, and yet everyone seems to be doing business with us when it's profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296804</id>
	<title>In communist China</title>
	<author>FShort</author>
	<datestamp>1267287840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>price fix you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>price fix you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>price fix you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297116</id>
	<title>Re:Turn to big-scale recycling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is that if it's got value then they'd be competing against eBay, craigslist, flea markets and whatever else second hand markets there are. There's no particular value to buying it from the manufacturer's second hand shop. The whole business model and process is completely different, there's no reason to think they'd be any good at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is that if it 's got value then they 'd be competing against eBay , craigslist , flea markets and whatever else second hand markets there are .
There 's no particular value to buying it from the manufacturer 's second hand shop .
The whole business model and process is completely different , there 's no reason to think they 'd be any good at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is that if it's got value then they'd be competing against eBay, craigslist, flea markets and whatever else second hand markets there are.
There's no particular value to buying it from the manufacturer's second hand shop.
The whole business model and process is completely different, there's no reason to think they'd be any good at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31301182</id>
	<title>Re:"New and improved" posting technology.</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1267280160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you don't recognize is, that these companies make both the old and new technology. Companies doesn't have to compete with themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you do n't recognize is , that these companies make both the old and new technology .
Companies does n't have to compete with themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you don't recognize is, that these companies make both the old and new technology.
Companies doesn't have to compete with themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299288</id>
	<title>Is this seriously a problem?</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1267262400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Price-fixing, might be an issue when a 20 cent CD becomes a $14 Album.</p><p>But when you've got a $20 DVD player, that costs less than just buying the equivalent screws in a bag from Home Depot -- is this really a problem? Without SOME profit, these companies can dry up with the cut-throat market. Maybe PRICE FIXING, is going on, but when the take-home is less than 10\% -- I think the Government should make a pass on it.</p><p>We have more of a problem in this nation of DUMPING, of things from other countries being too cheap, so that we can't afford to build anything. Slap a tariff on the cheap electronics until the US is competitive.</p><p>Price-fixing should be looked at more in terms of Monopoly Power and Jobs. All these electronics companies can go broke, and lowering the price on these components wouldn't mean that the market would buy any more DVD players anyway, and it wouldn't mean any more jobs in our country.</p><p>&gt;&gt; I think the ONLY reason this is an issue, is it's an easy target for regulators who don't want to go after anyone with a powerful Lobby. The only take-home lesson to manufacturers will be to spend more on lobbyists than engineers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Price-fixing , might be an issue when a 20 cent CD becomes a $ 14 Album.But when you 've got a $ 20 DVD player , that costs less than just buying the equivalent screws in a bag from Home Depot -- is this really a problem ?
Without SOME profit , these companies can dry up with the cut-throat market .
Maybe PRICE FIXING , is going on , but when the take-home is less than 10 \ % -- I think the Government should make a pass on it.We have more of a problem in this nation of DUMPING , of things from other countries being too cheap , so that we ca n't afford to build anything .
Slap a tariff on the cheap electronics until the US is competitive.Price-fixing should be looked at more in terms of Monopoly Power and Jobs .
All these electronics companies can go broke , and lowering the price on these components would n't mean that the market would buy any more DVD players anyway , and it would n't mean any more jobs in our country. &gt; &gt; I think the ONLY reason this is an issue , is it 's an easy target for regulators who do n't want to go after anyone with a powerful Lobby .
The only take-home lesson to manufacturers will be to spend more on lobbyists than engineers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Price-fixing, might be an issue when a 20 cent CD becomes a $14 Album.But when you've got a $20 DVD player, that costs less than just buying the equivalent screws in a bag from Home Depot -- is this really a problem?
Without SOME profit, these companies can dry up with the cut-throat market.
Maybe PRICE FIXING, is going on, but when the take-home is less than 10\% -- I think the Government should make a pass on it.We have more of a problem in this nation of DUMPING, of things from other countries being too cheap, so that we can't afford to build anything.
Slap a tariff on the cheap electronics until the US is competitive.Price-fixing should be looked at more in terms of Monopoly Power and Jobs.
All these electronics companies can go broke, and lowering the price on these components wouldn't mean that the market would buy any more DVD players anyway, and it wouldn't mean any more jobs in our country.&gt;&gt; I think the ONLY reason this is an issue, is it's an easy target for regulators who don't want to go after anyone with a powerful Lobby.
The only take-home lesson to manufacturers will be to spend more on lobbyists than engineers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299396</id>
	<title>Re:Price fixing should be allowed, IMO</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1267263120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gentlemanly competition is where suppliers compete on things other than pricing. It's close to price-fixing, with the important difference being that none of them have expressed it to one another, it's at most tacit. This happens a lot to some extent, and consumers can win in the long term, provided the extra money is going on service and R&amp;D. </p><p>Basically it gives a little room to shift the emphasis of competition from very short-term pricing. Of course, there's lots of different places for that emphasis to go. </p><p>When companies are actually agreeing to fix prices, there is no reason to believe the money is going anywhere that benefits consumers. The idea that the high prices would draw a new competitor does not really hold because price fixing only happens where there are substantial barriers to the entry of new firms into the market. For example, massive investment into machinery and patents together with the knowledge that your competitors are colluding against the consumer and will do the same to you. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gentlemanly competition is where suppliers compete on things other than pricing .
It 's close to price-fixing , with the important difference being that none of them have expressed it to one another , it 's at most tacit .
This happens a lot to some extent , and consumers can win in the long term , provided the extra money is going on service and R&amp;D .
Basically it gives a little room to shift the emphasis of competition from very short-term pricing .
Of course , there 's lots of different places for that emphasis to go .
When companies are actually agreeing to fix prices , there is no reason to believe the money is going anywhere that benefits consumers .
The idea that the high prices would draw a new competitor does not really hold because price fixing only happens where there are substantial barriers to the entry of new firms into the market .
For example , massive investment into machinery and patents together with the knowledge that your competitors are colluding against the consumer and will do the same to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gentlemanly competition is where suppliers compete on things other than pricing.
It's close to price-fixing, with the important difference being that none of them have expressed it to one another, it's at most tacit.
This happens a lot to some extent, and consumers can win in the long term, provided the extra money is going on service and R&amp;D.
Basically it gives a little room to shift the emphasis of competition from very short-term pricing.
Of course, there's lots of different places for that emphasis to go.
When companies are actually agreeing to fix prices, there is no reason to believe the money is going anywhere that benefits consumers.
The idea that the high prices would draw a new competitor does not really hold because price fixing only happens where there are substantial barriers to the entry of new firms into the market.
For example, massive investment into machinery and patents together with the knowledge that your competitors are colluding against the consumer and will do the same to you. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296920</id>
	<title>Re:Is there anything to this?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1267289160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All I see in the story is innuendo; no hint of any actual evidence.</p></div><p>Yeah, I suspect mostly what you're looking at is capacity limitations. Remember when AMD was kicking Intel's ass in CPUs yet never came close to taking over the market? No capacity. So you build a big electronics plant, it's a success but it's only scaled to produce X units/year. To build more you'd have to start building more, which would take so long the market is gone before it is done. Instead you just rise prices, turn a nice profit but the rest of the market still earns good money on old technology. I guess from the outside it can look very much like collusion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I see in the story is innuendo ; no hint of any actual evidence.Yeah , I suspect mostly what you 're looking at is capacity limitations .
Remember when AMD was kicking Intel 's ass in CPUs yet never came close to taking over the market ?
No capacity .
So you build a big electronics plant , it 's a success but it 's only scaled to produce X units/year .
To build more you 'd have to start building more , which would take so long the market is gone before it is done .
Instead you just rise prices , turn a nice profit but the rest of the market still earns good money on old technology .
I guess from the outside it can look very much like collusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I see in the story is innuendo; no hint of any actual evidence.Yeah, I suspect mostly what you're looking at is capacity limitations.
Remember when AMD was kicking Intel's ass in CPUs yet never came close to taking over the market?
No capacity.
So you build a big electronics plant, it's a success but it's only scaled to produce X units/year.
To build more you'd have to start building more, which would take so long the market is gone before it is done.
Instead you just rise prices, turn a nice profit but the rest of the market still earns good money on old technology.
I guess from the outside it can look very much like collusion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297828</id>
	<title>Re:Price fixing should be allowed, IMO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And deprive the middle class of services? You've got to be kidding me. It sounds like you don't want poor people to be able to fly. If you really want that "first class" experience, stop being a Scrooge and buy a first class ticket!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And deprive the middle class of services ?
You 've got to be kidding me .
It sounds like you do n't want poor people to be able to fly .
If you really want that " first class " experience , stop being a Scrooge and buy a first class ticket !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And deprive the middle class of services?
You've got to be kidding me.
It sounds like you don't want poor people to be able to fly.
If you really want that "first class" experience, stop being a Scrooge and buy a first class ticket!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297390</id>
	<title>Re:"New and improved" posting technology.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267293540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>Dumb buggy whip manufacturers try to get automobiles banned. Less dumb ones encourage excessive and useless safety regulations on automobiles. Smart ones quietly support "grass roots" efforts to prevent refineries from being built.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb buggy whip manufacturers try to get automobiles banned .
Less dumb ones encourage excessive and useless safety regulations on automobiles .
Smart ones quietly support " grass roots " efforts to prevent refineries from being built .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Dumb buggy whip manufacturers try to get automobiles banned.
Less dumb ones encourage excessive and useless safety regulations on automobiles.
Smart ones quietly support "grass roots" efforts to prevent refineries from being built.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31298268</id>
	<title>Re:Price fixing should be allowed, IMO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take the airline example.  Quality may have declined, but prices have allowed many more people to fly.  This expanded market has allowed airlines to expand.  Under regulation such things were not possible.
<p>
When we talk 'what the future holds' we are talking about management.  The issues we have seen is that managers have not been doing their jobs, but have still gotten paid sometimes huge sums and often get hired again.
</p><p>
In the late 90's this bad management took the form of mark to market. This was used to overvalue future income and sometimes resulted in huge upfront payments for product of little or no value to the vendor or customer.  Companies failed due to huge expenses and no income.  Price fixing would have done nothing except created inflated prices for customers.
</p><p>
In the current example, managers and entrepreneurs see a hot product and want to enter the market.  Capital manager also want to get into the hot market and loan money without proper due diligence.  As time goes on, the market becomes overstated.  One way to fix this is to lower prices so that demand can be increased.  Such a thing would not possible with price fixing.  Another way to fix this would be to let the businesses fail, a long with the irresponsible financial agents.  As log as this firms are small, this is not an issue.  It will not cause widespread problems.  What we are seeing is large integrated businesses, sometimes supported by the government, sometimes created by corrupt government regularion.
</p><p>
In any case, when we cannot let a firm fail, or when we must fix prices and force customers to buy the product, we know we are in deep shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the airline example .
Quality may have declined , but prices have allowed many more people to fly .
This expanded market has allowed airlines to expand .
Under regulation such things were not possible .
When we talk 'what the future holds ' we are talking about management .
The issues we have seen is that managers have not been doing their jobs , but have still gotten paid sometimes huge sums and often get hired again .
In the late 90 's this bad management took the form of mark to market .
This was used to overvalue future income and sometimes resulted in huge upfront payments for product of little or no value to the vendor or customer .
Companies failed due to huge expenses and no income .
Price fixing would have done nothing except created inflated prices for customers .
In the current example , managers and entrepreneurs see a hot product and want to enter the market .
Capital manager also want to get into the hot market and loan money without proper due diligence .
As time goes on , the market becomes overstated .
One way to fix this is to lower prices so that demand can be increased .
Such a thing would not possible with price fixing .
Another way to fix this would be to let the businesses fail , a long with the irresponsible financial agents .
As log as this firms are small , this is not an issue .
It will not cause widespread problems .
What we are seeing is large integrated businesses , sometimes supported by the government , sometimes created by corrupt government regularion .
In any case , when we can not let a firm fail , or when we must fix prices and force customers to buy the product , we know we are in deep shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the airline example.
Quality may have declined, but prices have allowed many more people to fly.
This expanded market has allowed airlines to expand.
Under regulation such things were not possible.
When we talk 'what the future holds' we are talking about management.
The issues we have seen is that managers have not been doing their jobs, but have still gotten paid sometimes huge sums and often get hired again.
In the late 90's this bad management took the form of mark to market.
This was used to overvalue future income and sometimes resulted in huge upfront payments for product of little or no value to the vendor or customer.
Companies failed due to huge expenses and no income.
Price fixing would have done nothing except created inflated prices for customers.
In the current example, managers and entrepreneurs see a hot product and want to enter the market.
Capital manager also want to get into the hot market and loan money without proper due diligence.
As time goes on, the market becomes overstated.
One way to fix this is to lower prices so that demand can be increased.
Such a thing would not possible with price fixing.
Another way to fix this would be to let the businesses fail, a long with the irresponsible financial agents.
As log as this firms are small, this is not an issue.
It will not cause widespread problems.
What we are seeing is large integrated businesses, sometimes supported by the government, sometimes created by corrupt government regularion.
In any case, when we cannot let a firm fail, or when we must fix prices and force customers to buy the product, we know we are in deep shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297022</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267290240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it costs too much, don't buy it.  It's not like they're colluding to corner the market on food staples or water.</p><p>This is a money-grab by lawyers, nothing else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it costs too much , do n't buy it .
It 's not like they 're colluding to corner the market on food staples or water.This is a money-grab by lawyers , nothing else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it costs too much, don't buy it.
It's not like they're colluding to corner the market on food staples or water.This is a money-grab by lawyers, nothing else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31300594</id>
	<title>I have a feeling...</title>
	<author>novae\_res</author>
	<datestamp>1267274700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That this is merely a fraction of how widespread the problem truly is. When I go to look at tv, ram, and other similar electronics, the prices are manifestly the same. When has there ever been a detailed investigation into these activities? I'm willing to bet this is the icing on the cake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That this is merely a fraction of how widespread the problem truly is .
When I go to look at tv , ram , and other similar electronics , the prices are manifestly the same .
When has there ever been a detailed investigation into these activities ?
I 'm willing to bet this is the icing on the cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That this is merely a fraction of how widespread the problem truly is.
When I go to look at tv, ram, and other similar electronics, the prices are manifestly the same.
When has there ever been a detailed investigation into these activities?
I'm willing to bet this is the icing on the cake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31298640</id>
	<title>All Hail S*ny Stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267301040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: "The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, also claims the disc drive manufacturers used trade organization forums to meet and discuss agreements to keep prices of CD, DVD and Blu-ray drives in products like the Sony PlayStation 3 and PCs artificially high."</p><p>Its just stupid to fuck up PS3 just because you want Blu-ray drives at a high price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " The lawsuit , filed Wednesday , also claims the disc drive manufacturers used trade organization forums to meet and discuss agreements to keep prices of CD , DVD and Blu-ray drives in products like the Sony PlayStation 3 and PCs artificially high .
" Its just stupid to fuck up PS3 just because you want Blu-ray drives at a high price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: "The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, also claims the disc drive manufacturers used trade organization forums to meet and discuss agreements to keep prices of CD, DVD and Blu-ray drives in products like the Sony PlayStation 3 and PCs artificially high.
"Its just stupid to fuck up PS3 just because you want Blu-ray drives at a high price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31300208</id>
	<title>Classic case of going after the weak guys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267270740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Price fixing in the electronics industry is necessary to some extent. The manufacturers barely make any money off of raw hardware. The profitability on these devices is around 5\% in most cases. Also to achieve large market share billions of dollars must be invested into expanding current clean room facilities and photolithography machines. The market dynamics for the electronics manufacturing simply require too much capital for production of a device with only a lifetime of 1 year before the next big thing comes out. How much cheaper do you want your gadgets? You have to realize if the stuff that you are designing does not sell for a high price, then your salary will go down accordingly because management will always take their share and the engineer will take the pay cut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Price fixing in the electronics industry is necessary to some extent .
The manufacturers barely make any money off of raw hardware .
The profitability on these devices is around 5 \ % in most cases .
Also to achieve large market share billions of dollars must be invested into expanding current clean room facilities and photolithography machines .
The market dynamics for the electronics manufacturing simply require too much capital for production of a device with only a lifetime of 1 year before the next big thing comes out .
How much cheaper do you want your gadgets ?
You have to realize if the stuff that you are designing does not sell for a high price , then your salary will go down accordingly because management will always take their share and the engineer will take the pay cut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Price fixing in the electronics industry is necessary to some extent.
The manufacturers barely make any money off of raw hardware.
The profitability on these devices is around 5\% in most cases.
Also to achieve large market share billions of dollars must be invested into expanding current clean room facilities and photolithography machines.
The market dynamics for the electronics manufacturing simply require too much capital for production of a device with only a lifetime of 1 year before the next big thing comes out.
How much cheaper do you want your gadgets?
You have to realize if the stuff that you are designing does not sell for a high price, then your salary will go down accordingly because management will always take their share and the engineer will take the pay cut.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296858</id>
	<title>Sounds Familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267288380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"'You can't have a technology destroy the business,' said the attorney representing the plaintiff. 'If you fire up a big fab plant with CRT tubes, and the next generation technology destroys it, then you have a big fab plant manufacturing buggy whips. So they have to make sure the price points for these [newer] technologies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... don't destroy existing markets.'"</i></p><p>Sounds like the "pro" side of the argument that I constantly hear from my corporatist / protectionist friends. "New technology is destroying the entrenched incumbents! If the existing corporations fail it will mean economic collapse! We must hobble new technology! We must buy more laws to prevent the future from coming! The future requires us to think and adapt! And -- EGADS -- TO HIRE ENGINEERS!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'You ca n't have a technology destroy the business, ' said the attorney representing the plaintiff .
'If you fire up a big fab plant with CRT tubes , and the next generation technology destroys it , then you have a big fab plant manufacturing buggy whips .
So they have to make sure the price points for these [ newer ] technologies ... do n't destroy existing markets .
' " Sounds like the " pro " side of the argument that I constantly hear from my corporatist / protectionist friends .
" New technology is destroying the entrenched incumbents !
If the existing corporations fail it will mean economic collapse !
We must hobble new technology !
We must buy more laws to prevent the future from coming !
The future requires us to think and adapt !
And -- EGADS -- TO HIRE ENGINEERS !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"'You can't have a technology destroy the business,' said the attorney representing the plaintiff.
'If you fire up a big fab plant with CRT tubes, and the next generation technology destroys it, then you have a big fab plant manufacturing buggy whips.
So they have to make sure the price points for these [newer] technologies ... don't destroy existing markets.
'"Sounds like the "pro" side of the argument that I constantly hear from my corporatist / protectionist friends.
"New technology is destroying the entrenched incumbents!
If the existing corporations fail it will mean economic collapse!
We must hobble new technology!
We must buy more laws to prevent the future from coming!
The future requires us to think and adapt!
And -- EGADS -- TO HIRE ENGINEERS!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297148</id>
	<title>Re:"New and improved" posting technology.</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1267291500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TV, Radio, and Internet are mostly separate technologies. DVD vs. Blu-Ray isn't. Radio and TV are both passive, and radio is used when you can only listen. The Internet is a very active technology. It requires interaction. Plus, if you wanted to have Internet radio in your car you'd probably need to be paying a monthly subscription fee for a cellular connection or something. DVD and Blu-Ray are both storage mediums. And they're the same size and format even - the only difference is that Blu-Ray holds a hell of a lot more. Blu-Ray \_will\_ replace DVD, just like DVD replaced VHS. And just like CDs replaced cassettes and vinyl (for everyone but DJs and audiophiles anyway) and 8-tracks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TV , Radio , and Internet are mostly separate technologies .
DVD vs. Blu-Ray is n't .
Radio and TV are both passive , and radio is used when you can only listen .
The Internet is a very active technology .
It requires interaction .
Plus , if you wanted to have Internet radio in your car you 'd probably need to be paying a monthly subscription fee for a cellular connection or something .
DVD and Blu-Ray are both storage mediums .
And they 're the same size and format even - the only difference is that Blu-Ray holds a hell of a lot more .
Blu-Ray \ _will \ _ replace DVD , just like DVD replaced VHS .
And just like CDs replaced cassettes and vinyl ( for everyone but DJs and audiophiles anyway ) and 8-tracks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV, Radio, and Internet are mostly separate technologies.
DVD vs. Blu-Ray isn't.
Radio and TV are both passive, and radio is used when you can only listen.
The Internet is a very active technology.
It requires interaction.
Plus, if you wanted to have Internet radio in your car you'd probably need to be paying a monthly subscription fee for a cellular connection or something.
DVD and Blu-Ray are both storage mediums.
And they're the same size and format even - the only difference is that Blu-Ray holds a hell of a lot more.
Blu-Ray \_will\_ replace DVD, just like DVD replaced VHS.
And just like CDs replaced cassettes and vinyl (for everyone but DJs and audiophiles anyway) and 8-tracks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297228</id>
	<title>format</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Istead of prices being fixed, they should be floating point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Istead of prices being fixed , they should be floating point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Istead of prices being fixed, they should be floating point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297608</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Superdarion</author>
	<datestamp>1267295400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that big corporations have the resources and the hired great minds. They completely control the market and are the ones shaping the future and all they seem to want is for us to keep buying their old black and green CRTs so that they don't have spend money to build new plants.<br> <br>

They want to keep us in 1990's technology for their own benefit! They're hampering technological advance just to buy a new pair of shoes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that big corporations have the resources and the hired great minds .
They completely control the market and are the ones shaping the future and all they seem to want is for us to keep buying their old black and green CRTs so that they do n't have spend money to build new plants .
They want to keep us in 1990 's technology for their own benefit !
They 're hampering technological advance just to buy a new pair of shoes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that big corporations have the resources and the hired great minds.
They completely control the market and are the ones shaping the future and all they seem to want is for us to keep buying their old black and green CRTs so that they don't have spend money to build new plants.
They want to keep us in 1990's technology for their own benefit!
They're hampering technological advance just to buy a new pair of shoes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297022</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31306806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31302574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31301182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31301284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31298268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31305904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31298806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31303882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31303414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31301092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1422224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31300058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1422224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1422224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31302574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31298268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31300058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1422224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31301284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31303414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1422224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1422224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31303882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297388
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31305904
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31301092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1422224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1422224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31300208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1422224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31298806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1422224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31301182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1422224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31297024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31296986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1422224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31299288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1422224.31306806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
