<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_19_2323258</id>
	<title>Federal Judge Bars Instant Publishing of Analysts' Stock Tips</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268997840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Big Banking firms Barclay's Capital, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch successfully obtained an injunction against theflyonthewall.com, Inc., <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1823895820100319?type=marketsNews">preventing them from immediately publishing the firms' stock upgrades and downgrades</a>.  This case could have far-reaching consequences concerning internet communication and publication of news."</i> Here's some <a href="http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/2010/03/sort/time\_rev/page/1/entry/1:130/20100319152150:A959E9F4-338C-11DF-97F9-B97C93F337E6/">interesting analysis from Paul Levy</a>, via Dave Farber's Interesting People list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Big Banking firms Barclay 's Capital , Morgan Stanley , and Merrill Lynch successfully obtained an injunction against theflyonthewall.com , Inc. , preventing them from immediately publishing the firms ' stock upgrades and downgrades .
This case could have far-reaching consequences concerning internet communication and publication of news .
" Here 's some interesting analysis from Paul Levy , via Dave Farber 's Interesting People list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Big Banking firms Barclay's Capital, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch successfully obtained an injunction against theflyonthewall.com, Inc., preventing them from immediately publishing the firms' stock upgrades and downgrades.
This case could have far-reaching consequences concerning internet communication and publication of news.
" Here's some interesting analysis from Paul Levy, via Dave Farber's Interesting People list.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547446</id>
	<title>Re:Easy Solution...</title>
	<author>Arccot</author>
	<datestamp>1269021960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Theflyonthewall.com just moves it's servers &amp; business outside the US. I hear Antigua might be a good choice, since they've already gotten a WTO judgment against the US and so wouldn't be quick to cooperate with the US to take down the site.</p><p>It looks like the US government is determined to drive businesses, particularly internet-based or -dependent businesses, to other countries. Then they whine about trade imbalances and people wonder why business is fleeing the US.</p><p>Strat</p></div><p>I'm not exactly boo-hooing over any movement of this website to a different country. A country shouldn't kowtow to businesses to keep them in-country. They should do what's right in the eyes of the people it represents. Or, at least that's what an idealist would say.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theflyonthewall.com just moves it 's servers &amp; business outside the US .
I hear Antigua might be a good choice , since they 've already gotten a WTO judgment against the US and so would n't be quick to cooperate with the US to take down the site.It looks like the US government is determined to drive businesses , particularly internet-based or -dependent businesses , to other countries .
Then they whine about trade imbalances and people wonder why business is fleeing the US.StratI 'm not exactly boo-hooing over any movement of this website to a different country .
A country should n't kowtow to businesses to keep them in-country .
They should do what 's right in the eyes of the people it represents .
Or , at least that 's what an idealist would say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theflyonthewall.com just moves it's servers &amp; business outside the US.
I hear Antigua might be a good choice, since they've already gotten a WTO judgment against the US and so wouldn't be quick to cooperate with the US to take down the site.It looks like the US government is determined to drive businesses, particularly internet-based or -dependent businesses, to other countries.
Then they whine about trade imbalances and people wonder why business is fleeing the US.StratI'm not exactly boo-hooing over any movement of this website to a different country.
A country shouldn't kowtow to businesses to keep them in-country.
They should do what's right in the eyes of the people it represents.
Or, at least that's what an idealist would say.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545516</id>
	<title>hur hur</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269001620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are analysists?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are analysists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are analysists?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547742</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269026700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't insider information, this is privately conducted analysis of public information.  There is a distinct difference - Morgan Stanley has its analysts look at the company, competitors, and any other information they have and make a judgment call on it on behalf of their clients.  While such upgrades/downgrades do affect prices, they are not insider information in the same sense of "new secret iPhone killer announcement tomorrow".  In theory, anyone could do the same analysis Morgan Stanley did and reach the same (or different) conclusions and so this does not constitute insider info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't insider information , this is privately conducted analysis of public information .
There is a distinct difference - Morgan Stanley has its analysts look at the company , competitors , and any other information they have and make a judgment call on it on behalf of their clients .
While such upgrades/downgrades do affect prices , they are not insider information in the same sense of " new secret iPhone killer announcement tomorrow " .
In theory , anyone could do the same analysis Morgan Stanley did and reach the same ( or different ) conclusions and so this does not constitute insider info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't insider information, this is privately conducted analysis of public information.
There is a distinct difference - Morgan Stanley has its analysts look at the company, competitors, and any other information they have and make a judgment call on it on behalf of their clients.
While such upgrades/downgrades do affect prices, they are not insider information in the same sense of "new secret iPhone killer announcement tomorrow".
In theory, anyone could do the same analysis Morgan Stanley did and reach the same (or different) conclusions and so this does not constitute insider info.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545734</id>
	<title>Stupidity</title>
	<author>StylusEater</author>
	<datestamp>1269003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the Article: <br> <br>

<i>The banks welcomed the ruling. Merrill spokesman Bill Halldin called it a "milestone in regaining control over the distribution of our proprietary research and preserving the value of our investment ideas for our clients."</i> <br> <br>

Hrm... so if I were to publish my proprietary information online, our say, outside of my house, then people read it and used it before I could make money from it I can sue them for losses?  Wow! what a novel idea banks!  <br> <br> I've got a better one, why don't you lock the content away behind a login and share it with it client until you believe it be of insufficient value, then release it?  Brilliant!</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Article : The banks welcomed the ruling .
Merrill spokesman Bill Halldin called it a " milestone in regaining control over the distribution of our proprietary research and preserving the value of our investment ideas for our clients .
" Hrm... so if I were to publish my proprietary information online , our say , outside of my house , then people read it and used it before I could make money from it I can sue them for losses ?
Wow ! what a novel idea banks !
I 've got a better one , why do n't you lock the content away behind a login and share it with it client until you believe it be of insufficient value , then release it ?
Brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Article:  

The banks welcomed the ruling.
Merrill spokesman Bill Halldin called it a "milestone in regaining control over the distribution of our proprietary research and preserving the value of our investment ideas for our clients.
"  

Hrm... so if I were to publish my proprietary information online, our say, outside of my house, then people read it and used it before I could make money from it I can sue them for losses?
Wow! what a novel idea banks!
I've got a better one, why don't you lock the content away behind a login and share it with it client until you believe it be of insufficient value, then release it?
Brilliant!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546292</id>
	<title>letting politicians have a say over the internet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the mid 80's, we had this internet thingy (well, we had it in the late 60's and all of 70's and early 80's, but I wasn't on it yet).  It was totally free from commercial and political influence.  Courts didn't get a say over it, because *they didn't know it existed*.  Companies didn't put up banner ads, because there was no web, and no such thing as a banner ad.</p><p>At some point, politicians started thinking they should be able to control what happens on it, and companies started buying eyeballs using it.  I'm not sure that's going to lead anywhere good.  Yes, some of the politician and court decisions will be sensible.  But the potential for really huge damage is, well, really huge, especially when the more repressive regimes out there start wanting to control it for their own ends.</p><p>I think it was better when it was the wild west, anything goes.  Yes, that means abuse, it means people being asses and jerks and scammers.  But it had the potential to be a bastion of freedom for all humanity, for all the messiness that entails, that exists no other way.  Sadly, that aspect of the internet lasted, from my perspective, about 5 or 7 years, total.  I know old timers saw more of it, but anyway it's long over now.</p><p>Captcha: audacity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the mid 80 's , we had this internet thingy ( well , we had it in the late 60 's and all of 70 's and early 80 's , but I was n't on it yet ) .
It was totally free from commercial and political influence .
Courts did n't get a say over it , because * they did n't know it existed * .
Companies did n't put up banner ads , because there was no web , and no such thing as a banner ad.At some point , politicians started thinking they should be able to control what happens on it , and companies started buying eyeballs using it .
I 'm not sure that 's going to lead anywhere good .
Yes , some of the politician and court decisions will be sensible .
But the potential for really huge damage is , well , really huge , especially when the more repressive regimes out there start wanting to control it for their own ends.I think it was better when it was the wild west , anything goes .
Yes , that means abuse , it means people being asses and jerks and scammers .
But it had the potential to be a bastion of freedom for all humanity , for all the messiness that entails , that exists no other way .
Sadly , that aspect of the internet lasted , from my perspective , about 5 or 7 years , total .
I know old timers saw more of it , but anyway it 's long over now.Captcha : audacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the mid 80's, we had this internet thingy (well, we had it in the late 60's and all of 70's and early 80's, but I wasn't on it yet).
It was totally free from commercial and political influence.
Courts didn't get a say over it, because *they didn't know it existed*.
Companies didn't put up banner ads, because there was no web, and no such thing as a banner ad.At some point, politicians started thinking they should be able to control what happens on it, and companies started buying eyeballs using it.
I'm not sure that's going to lead anywhere good.
Yes, some of the politician and court decisions will be sensible.
But the potential for really huge damage is, well, really huge, especially when the more repressive regimes out there start wanting to control it for their own ends.I think it was better when it was the wild west, anything goes.
Yes, that means abuse, it means people being asses and jerks and scammers.
But it had the potential to be a bastion of freedom for all humanity, for all the messiness that entails, that exists no other way.
Sadly, that aspect of the internet lasted, from my perspective, about 5 or 7 years, total.
I know old timers saw more of it, but anyway it's long over now.Captcha: audacity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545888</id>
	<title>You mean I'll have to wait?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269003900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To gain access to the nearly identical analysis and consensus estimates that these firms publish in lockstep?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To gain access to the nearly identical analysis and consensus estimates that these firms publish in lockstep ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To gain access to the nearly identical analysis and consensus estimates that these firms publish in lockstep?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545636</id>
	<title>No, please help *me* out here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269002460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like a typical Linux user, I have long since given up any hope of any caucasian girl allowing me to do sex to her, and have begun dating Asian girls. Today I took one to my local mall, showed her some badass capacitors that were on sale at Maplins, told her all about the shortcomings of Linux's current scheduler, bought her almost $100 worth of Hello Kitty gear...yet...she did not allow me to do sex to her. </p><p>Why the hell not? What am I doing wrong? I am literally surrounded by geeks with asian girlfriends - it's what we do. Yet clearly I am making some kind of mistake. Do you, my fellow geeks, have any advice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like a typical Linux user , I have long since given up any hope of any caucasian girl allowing me to do sex to her , and have begun dating Asian girls .
Today I took one to my local mall , showed her some badass capacitors that were on sale at Maplins , told her all about the shortcomings of Linux 's current scheduler , bought her almost $ 100 worth of Hello Kitty gear...yet...she did not allow me to do sex to her .
Why the hell not ?
What am I doing wrong ?
I am literally surrounded by geeks with asian girlfriends - it 's what we do .
Yet clearly I am making some kind of mistake .
Do you , my fellow geeks , have any advice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like a typical Linux user, I have long since given up any hope of any caucasian girl allowing me to do sex to her, and have begun dating Asian girls.
Today I took one to my local mall, showed her some badass capacitors that were on sale at Maplins, told her all about the shortcomings of Linux's current scheduler, bought her almost $100 worth of Hello Kitty gear...yet...she did not allow me to do sex to her.
Why the hell not?
What am I doing wrong?
I am literally surrounded by geeks with asian girlfriends - it's what we do.
Yet clearly I am making some kind of mistake.
Do you, my fellow geeks, have any advice?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546070</id>
	<title>Easy Solution...</title>
	<author>BlueStrat</author>
	<datestamp>1269005280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theflyonthewall.com just moves it's servers &amp; business outside the US. I hear Antigua might be a good choice, since they've already gotten a WTO judgment against the US and so wouldn't be quick to cooperate with the US to take down the site.</p><p>It looks like the US government is determined to drive businesses, particularly internet-based or -dependent businesses, to other countries. Then they whine about trade imbalances and people wonder why business is fleeing the US.</p><p>Strat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theflyonthewall.com just moves it 's servers &amp; business outside the US .
I hear Antigua might be a good choice , since they 've already gotten a WTO judgment against the US and so would n't be quick to cooperate with the US to take down the site.It looks like the US government is determined to drive businesses , particularly internet-based or -dependent businesses , to other countries .
Then they whine about trade imbalances and people wonder why business is fleeing the US.Strat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theflyonthewall.com just moves it's servers &amp; business outside the US.
I hear Antigua might be a good choice, since they've already gotten a WTO judgment against the US and so wouldn't be quick to cooperate with the US to take down the site.It looks like the US government is determined to drive businesses, particularly internet-based or -dependent businesses, to other countries.
Then they whine about trade imbalances and people wonder why business is fleeing the US.Strat</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546002</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>dj961</author>
	<datestamp>1269004740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it's not factual information, it's analysis and opinion. You wouldn't call an opinion piece on the economy as factual information, because everyone knows that an opinion piece is a subjective interpretation of the facts. Why would you do the same for a stock tip. This has nothing to do with Google News because Google News redistributes the news and not opinions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's not factual information , it 's analysis and opinion .
You would n't call an opinion piece on the economy as factual information , because everyone knows that an opinion piece is a subjective interpretation of the facts .
Why would you do the same for a stock tip .
This has nothing to do with Google News because Google News redistributes the news and not opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's not factual information, it's analysis and opinion.
You wouldn't call an opinion piece on the economy as factual information, because everyone knows that an opinion piece is a subjective interpretation of the facts.
Why would you do the same for a stock tip.
This has nothing to do with Google News because Google News redistributes the news and not opinions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545592</id>
	<title>Hm.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269002220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said Theflyonthewall.com engaged in "systematic misappropriation," essentially getting a "free ride" from its quick publication of upgrades and downgrades that can move stocks higher and lower.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Cote issued a permanent injunction requiring the Summit, New Jersey-based company to wait until 10 a.m. to report research from the three banks that was issued before the market opens, and at least two hours for research issued thereafter. The bulk of research is typically issued before the open.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>While the banks had sought longer delays, Cote said: "This time frame preserves incentives for the firms to create and disseminate research reports to their investor clients, while still recognizing the inevitable, fast-moving, and widespread informal communication of recommendation on Wall Street."</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>The banks welcomed the ruling. Merrill spokesman Bill Halldin called it a "milestone in regaining control over the distribution of our proprietary research and preserving the value of our investment ideas for our clients."</p></div><p>So, let me try to get this straight. There is a game. Let's call this game "Market". Market tracks the players on a leaderboard. The scores of the players go up and down, based on how they perform in-game. People are allowed to bet on The Market, and its players. There is a lot of money to be made in the ebb and flow of players' score. Furthermore, the players in the Market have their scores based on how many people are betting on them. It's so lucrative, people have made scripts to rss how each of these players are doing. Whoever has the most information can "game" The Market, and make a lot of money.</p><p>The players of The Market are complaining that people sharing information about the game as quick as possible hurts them. The gamblers are shouting "information wants to be free"!</p><p>I think both the players and the gamblers have a valid argument here. In my book, however, the players autofail the game because they are using the police power of the government to control the gamblers. If they love The Market so much, they should play the game as it is, not change the rules.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said Theflyonthewall.com engaged in " systematic misappropriation , " essentially getting a " free ride " from its quick publication of upgrades and downgrades that can move stocks higher and lower.Cote issued a permanent injunction requiring the Summit , New Jersey-based company to wait until 10 a.m. to report research from the three banks that was issued before the market opens , and at least two hours for research issued thereafter .
The bulk of research is typically issued before the open.While the banks had sought longer delays , Cote said : " This time frame preserves incentives for the firms to create and disseminate research reports to their investor clients , while still recognizing the inevitable , fast-moving , and widespread informal communication of recommendation on Wall Street .
" The banks welcomed the ruling .
Merrill spokesman Bill Halldin called it a " milestone in regaining control over the distribution of our proprietary research and preserving the value of our investment ideas for our clients .
" So , let me try to get this straight .
There is a game .
Let 's call this game " Market " .
Market tracks the players on a leaderboard .
The scores of the players go up and down , based on how they perform in-game .
People are allowed to bet on The Market , and its players .
There is a lot of money to be made in the ebb and flow of players ' score .
Furthermore , the players in the Market have their scores based on how many people are betting on them .
It 's so lucrative , people have made scripts to rss how each of these players are doing .
Whoever has the most information can " game " The Market , and make a lot of money.The players of The Market are complaining that people sharing information about the game as quick as possible hurts them .
The gamblers are shouting " information wants to be free " ! I think both the players and the gamblers have a valid argument here .
In my book , however , the players autofail the game because they are using the police power of the government to control the gamblers .
If they love The Market so much , they should play the game as it is , not change the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said Theflyonthewall.com engaged in "systematic misappropriation," essentially getting a "free ride" from its quick publication of upgrades and downgrades that can move stocks higher and lower.Cote issued a permanent injunction requiring the Summit, New Jersey-based company to wait until 10 a.m. to report research from the three banks that was issued before the market opens, and at least two hours for research issued thereafter.
The bulk of research is typically issued before the open.While the banks had sought longer delays, Cote said: "This time frame preserves incentives for the firms to create and disseminate research reports to their investor clients, while still recognizing the inevitable, fast-moving, and widespread informal communication of recommendation on Wall Street.
"The banks welcomed the ruling.
Merrill spokesman Bill Halldin called it a "milestone in regaining control over the distribution of our proprietary research and preserving the value of our investment ideas for our clients.
"So, let me try to get this straight.
There is a game.
Let's call this game "Market".
Market tracks the players on a leaderboard.
The scores of the players go up and down, based on how they perform in-game.
People are allowed to bet on The Market, and its players.
There is a lot of money to be made in the ebb and flow of players' score.
Furthermore, the players in the Market have their scores based on how many people are betting on them.
It's so lucrative, people have made scripts to rss how each of these players are doing.
Whoever has the most information can "game" The Market, and make a lot of money.The players of The Market are complaining that people sharing information about the game as quick as possible hurts them.
The gamblers are shouting "information wants to be free"!I think both the players and the gamblers have a valid argument here.
In my book, however, the players autofail the game because they are using the police power of the government to control the gamblers.
If they love The Market so much, they should play the game as it is, not change the rules.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546570</id>
	<title>Re:No, insider trading</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1269010500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should they have to release information to the non-paying public at the same time they release it to their paying clients? That would be like Macafee making a anti-virus update available to everyone in the world at the same time they made it available to their subscribers. That's just asinine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should they have to release information to the non-paying public at the same time they release it to their paying clients ?
That would be like Macafee making a anti-virus update available to everyone in the world at the same time they made it available to their subscribers .
That 's just asinine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should they have to release information to the non-paying public at the same time they release it to their paying clients?
That would be like Macafee making a anti-virus update available to everyone in the world at the same time they made it available to their subscribers.
That's just asinine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546150</id>
	<title>Re:Trade Secrets?</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1269006000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember when that Hulk film from 2003 blamed the internet and texting for ruining opening it's weekend?</p><p>Will movie studios now ask for opening weekend injunctions on news sites too from reporting on plot/story and whether it sucks or not, before most theater-goers had a chance to watch it?</p><p>I mean, while we limit freedom of press for business concerns, we might as well see what other industries would like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when that Hulk film from 2003 blamed the internet and texting for ruining opening it 's weekend ? Will movie studios now ask for opening weekend injunctions on news sites too from reporting on plot/story and whether it sucks or not , before most theater-goers had a chance to watch it ? I mean , while we limit freedom of press for business concerns , we might as well see what other industries would like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when that Hulk film from 2003 blamed the internet and texting for ruining opening it's weekend?Will movie studios now ask for opening weekend injunctions on news sites too from reporting on plot/story and whether it sucks or not, before most theater-goers had a chance to watch it?I mean, while we limit freedom of press for business concerns, we might as well see what other industries would like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31549054</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>iamwahoo2</author>
	<datestamp>1269095460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was new to me, so I looked up this "systematic misappropriation" that was cited by the judge. Turns out that this has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. It is based on the <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/linking/doctrine/index.html" title="harvard.edu">The Doctrine of Misappropriation</a> [harvard.edu].  It is wild, but this is in essence a law created entirely by the judiciary. It is not like other cases where the judiciary is accused of stretching the constitution to the extreme. In this case, the judiciary literally created the law out of nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was new to me , so I looked up this " systematic misappropriation " that was cited by the judge .
Turns out that this has absolutely nothing to do with copyright .
It is based on the The Doctrine of Misappropriation [ harvard.edu ] .
It is wild , but this is in essence a law created entirely by the judiciary .
It is not like other cases where the judiciary is accused of stretching the constitution to the extreme .
In this case , the judiciary literally created the law out of nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was new to me, so I looked up this "systematic misappropriation" that was cited by the judge.
Turns out that this has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
It is based on the The Doctrine of Misappropriation [harvard.edu].
It is wild, but this is in essence a law created entirely by the judiciary.
It is not like other cases where the judiciary is accused of stretching the constitution to the extreme.
In this case, the judiciary literally created the law out of nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547018</id>
	<title>Re:No, insider trading</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269015120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not a trade secret when you share ratings with <b>your clients</b> several hours before you release information to the public.</p></div><p>Man, you should really read what you post.</p><p>The public has absolutely no right to receive a report requested and paid for by a private entity before that private entity receives the report themselves.  This is <i>especially</i> true if that report will eventually be made public and is potentially damaging to said entity.  It's like going to a car repair shop and asking for a quote, but instead of handing you a quote they go and post your quote in the newspaper and <i>then</i> hand you the quote.  In the mean time 20 people have lined up ahead of you as a direct result of that quote because you didn't have a chance to make an informed decision.  It's ass backwards.  It's not market manipulation, it's providing the service to the person who paid for it, instead of everyone who didn't.</p><p>On the other hand, the reason theflyonthewall.com got the reports in the first place was because somebody gave them to TFOTW before they gave them to the client, so 100\% of the blame rests on the analysts themselves.  In my opinion the Judge should have just told them they needed to get their shit together.  Instead the Judge told them they have 1 year to get their shit together (there are apparently laws that allow for this), after which TFOTW can request the injunction be lifted.</p><p>The breach here is giving the information to TFOTW, but it took the analysts to create such a breach, so frankly I think the injunction should be on the analysts and not TFOTW.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a trade secret when you share ratings with your clients several hours before you release information to the public.Man , you should really read what you post.The public has absolutely no right to receive a report requested and paid for by a private entity before that private entity receives the report themselves .
This is especially true if that report will eventually be made public and is potentially damaging to said entity .
It 's like going to a car repair shop and asking for a quote , but instead of handing you a quote they go and post your quote in the newspaper and then hand you the quote .
In the mean time 20 people have lined up ahead of you as a direct result of that quote because you did n't have a chance to make an informed decision .
It 's ass backwards .
It 's not market manipulation , it 's providing the service to the person who paid for it , instead of everyone who did n't.On the other hand , the reason theflyonthewall.com got the reports in the first place was because somebody gave them to TFOTW before they gave them to the client , so 100 \ % of the blame rests on the analysts themselves .
In my opinion the Judge should have just told them they needed to get their shit together .
Instead the Judge told them they have 1 year to get their shit together ( there are apparently laws that allow for this ) , after which TFOTW can request the injunction be lifted.The breach here is giving the information to TFOTW , but it took the analysts to create such a breach , so frankly I think the injunction should be on the analysts and not TFOTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a trade secret when you share ratings with your clients several hours before you release information to the public.Man, you should really read what you post.The public has absolutely no right to receive a report requested and paid for by a private entity before that private entity receives the report themselves.
This is especially true if that report will eventually be made public and is potentially damaging to said entity.
It's like going to a car repair shop and asking for a quote, but instead of handing you a quote they go and post your quote in the newspaper and then hand you the quote.
In the mean time 20 people have lined up ahead of you as a direct result of that quote because you didn't have a chance to make an informed decision.
It's ass backwards.
It's not market manipulation, it's providing the service to the person who paid for it, instead of everyone who didn't.On the other hand, the reason theflyonthewall.com got the reports in the first place was because somebody gave them to TFOTW before they gave them to the client, so 100\% of the blame rests on the analysts themselves.
In my opinion the Judge should have just told them they needed to get their shit together.
Instead the Judge told them they have 1 year to get their shit together (there are apparently laws that allow for this), after which TFOTW can request the injunction be lifted.The breach here is giving the information to TFOTW, but it took the analysts to create such a breach, so frankly I think the injunction should be on the analysts and not TFOTW.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545760</id>
	<title>Since when were Morgan and Merrill  news agencies?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1269003180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>"Big <b>Banking</b> Firms Barclay's Capital, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch successfully obtained an injunction against theflyonthewall.com</em> </p><p> <em>and violated the "hot news" doctrine by "misappropriation" of the fact that "buy" or "sell"  opinions had been expressed. </em> </p><p>
What is the "misappropriation" of the fact that an opinion has been expressed by someone?
</p><p>
Isn't that a form of <b>free speech</b>?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Big Banking Firms Barclay 's Capital , Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch successfully obtained an injunction against theflyonthewall.com and violated the " hot news " doctrine by " misappropriation " of the fact that " buy " or " sell " opinions had been expressed .
What is the " misappropriation " of the fact that an opinion has been expressed by someone ?
Is n't that a form of free speech ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Big Banking Firms Barclay's Capital, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch successfully obtained an injunction against theflyonthewall.com  and violated the "hot news" doctrine by "misappropriation" of the fact that "buy" or "sell"  opinions had been expressed.
What is the "misappropriation" of the fact that an opinion has been expressed by someone?
Isn't that a form of free speech?
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545668</id>
	<title>Trade Secrets?</title>
	<author>Alaren</author>
	<datestamp>1269002700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't read the ruling--just the article, which does not mention trade secrets--but the word "misappropriation" suggests to me that this case was decided under a trade secrets analysis (or something similar under a federal securities regulation of some kind).  Reading between the lines, it looks like theflyonthewall.com was engaged in soliciting "leaks" and publishing them before the information could be communicated to clients.

</p><p>The current (well-supported) suspicion of banks and stock traders gives the whole article a sinister patina, e.g. "the banks were keeping upgrades and downgrades secret, but theflyonthewall was exposing the information before the brandy-and-cigars set could fully exploit it!"

</p><p>But if we put momentarily overlook Wall Street's well-earned reputation for behaving as clannish and psychotic as possible, the solicitation and publication of trade secrets (or the like) is generally frowned upon.  I think there are some interest public interest/private interest issues raised by the practices involved, but it doesn't <i>appear</i> to have any legal implications for online information providers generally--just those who obtain their information in inappropriate ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read the ruling--just the article , which does not mention trade secrets--but the word " misappropriation " suggests to me that this case was decided under a trade secrets analysis ( or something similar under a federal securities regulation of some kind ) .
Reading between the lines , it looks like theflyonthewall.com was engaged in soliciting " leaks " and publishing them before the information could be communicated to clients .
The current ( well-supported ) suspicion of banks and stock traders gives the whole article a sinister patina , e.g .
" the banks were keeping upgrades and downgrades secret , but theflyonthewall was exposing the information before the brandy-and-cigars set could fully exploit it !
" But if we put momentarily overlook Wall Street 's well-earned reputation for behaving as clannish and psychotic as possible , the solicitation and publication of trade secrets ( or the like ) is generally frowned upon .
I think there are some interest public interest/private interest issues raised by the practices involved , but it does n't appear to have any legal implications for online information providers generally--just those who obtain their information in inappropriate ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read the ruling--just the article, which does not mention trade secrets--but the word "misappropriation" suggests to me that this case was decided under a trade secrets analysis (or something similar under a federal securities regulation of some kind).
Reading between the lines, it looks like theflyonthewall.com was engaged in soliciting "leaks" and publishing them before the information could be communicated to clients.
The current (well-supported) suspicion of banks and stock traders gives the whole article a sinister patina, e.g.
"the banks were keeping upgrades and downgrades secret, but theflyonthewall was exposing the information before the brandy-and-cigars set could fully exploit it!
"

But if we put momentarily overlook Wall Street's well-earned reputation for behaving as clannish and psychotic as possible, the solicitation and publication of trade secrets (or the like) is generally frowned upon.
I think there are some interest public interest/private interest issues raised by the practices involved, but it doesn't appear to have any legal implications for online information providers generally--just those who obtain their information in inappropriate ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547400</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1269021180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm having a brain fart at the moment.  Anyone care to explain to a noob what kind of implications this could have?</p></div><p>It means the first amendment doesn't matter when rich people want to maintain an advantage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm having a brain fart at the moment .
Anyone care to explain to a noob what kind of implications this could have ? It means the first amendment does n't matter when rich people want to maintain an advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm having a brain fart at the moment.
Anyone care to explain to a noob what kind of implications this could have?It means the first amendment doesn't matter when rich people want to maintain an advantage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545658</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1269002640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Basically, this company was publishing the results of various investment bank's research before their clients could read and act upon it.  The legal reasoning behind it could equally be applied to Google News republishing other people's headlines, for example.  More seriously, it means that effectively, you now have a sort of "copyright" created by the courts on factual information that you possess.  I leave it to slashdotters to come up with ways this might be abused....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , this company was publishing the results of various investment bank 's research before their clients could read and act upon it .
The legal reasoning behind it could equally be applied to Google News republishing other people 's headlines , for example .
More seriously , it means that effectively , you now have a sort of " copyright " created by the courts on factual information that you possess .
I leave it to slashdotters to come up with ways this might be abused... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, this company was publishing the results of various investment bank's research before their clients could read and act upon it.
The legal reasoning behind it could equally be applied to Google News republishing other people's headlines, for example.
More seriously, it means that effectively, you now have a sort of "copyright" created by the courts on factual information that you possess.
I leave it to slashdotters to come up with ways this might be abused....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547064</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1269015840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "criminal" sites move to offshore hosts.  Business as usual by Monday.  A couple weeks at the latest if they're totally incompetent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " criminal " sites move to offshore hosts .
Business as usual by Monday .
A couple weeks at the latest if they 're totally incompetent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "criminal" sites move to offshore hosts.
Business as usual by Monday.
A couple weeks at the latest if they're totally incompetent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548912</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1269093900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> What this ruling does, as far as I can tell, is impede that process by preventing the dissemination of useful information about who can make the best use of investment capital.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not information (in the sense of facts), it's opinion and analysis.  Opinion and analysis that the bank has paid money to have performed.  It seems perfectly reasonable therefore for them to restrict access to it.</p><p>Typical crapdot summary.  It has nothing to do with "publication of <i>news</i>" at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What this ruling does , as far as I can tell , is impede that process by preventing the dissemination of useful information about who can make the best use of investment capital.It 's not information ( in the sense of facts ) , it 's opinion and analysis .
Opinion and analysis that the bank has paid money to have performed .
It seems perfectly reasonable therefore for them to restrict access to it.Typical crapdot summary .
It has nothing to do with " publication of news " at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What this ruling does, as far as I can tell, is impede that process by preventing the dissemination of useful information about who can make the best use of investment capital.It's not information (in the sense of facts), it's opinion and analysis.
Opinion and analysis that the bank has paid money to have performed.
It seems perfectly reasonable therefore for them to restrict access to it.Typical crapdot summary.
It has nothing to do with "publication of news" at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546650</id>
	<title>Re:Why stock markets are EXACTLY like fashion:</title>
	<author>dmomo</author>
	<datestamp>1269011520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure. The "couple of dudes" thing happens.  But you're giving the impression that this is how the overall market works.  "There's a small number of people driving the whole thing".  "It's all rigged".<br>No. For the most part, it's "rigged" by an amazing feedback system of entity-less market forces.<br>These "couple of dudes" you speak of..  they might make out well, but, they hardly make a bump in the grand scheme. And most of these people fail.<br>And the ones who succeed... I'd love to think that they are ruining the game for all of those "dumb investors".  But I highly doubt it. Conspiracy exists in all aspects of the world, especially where there is money. But it's not running the stock market. The Market runs the stock market.</p><p>Interesting comparison to the fashion industry, though. It's definitely true with respect to the "demand" aspect.</p><p>I would love to see how your skills of counter-culture help you win big at the stock market! You're right. The people who really win big, tend to invest contrarily. However, I think the biggest losers are among the contrary. It's all risk-management. In stocks, you hear about the big winners and the big losers.  But on average, most people do, well, average.  I'd mod you up if I could. You got me thinking and rambling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
The " couple of dudes " thing happens .
But you 're giving the impression that this is how the overall market works .
" There 's a small number of people driving the whole thing " .
" It 's all rigged " .No .
For the most part , it 's " rigged " by an amazing feedback system of entity-less market forces.These " couple of dudes " you speak of.. they might make out well , but , they hardly make a bump in the grand scheme .
And most of these people fail.And the ones who succeed... I 'd love to think that they are ruining the game for all of those " dumb investors " .
But I highly doubt it .
Conspiracy exists in all aspects of the world , especially where there is money .
But it 's not running the stock market .
The Market runs the stock market.Interesting comparison to the fashion industry , though .
It 's definitely true with respect to the " demand " aspect.I would love to see how your skills of counter-culture help you win big at the stock market !
You 're right .
The people who really win big , tend to invest contrarily .
However , I think the biggest losers are among the contrary .
It 's all risk-management .
In stocks , you hear about the big winners and the big losers .
But on average , most people do , well , average .
I 'd mod you up if I could .
You got me thinking and rambling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
The "couple of dudes" thing happens.
But you're giving the impression that this is how the overall market works.
"There's a small number of people driving the whole thing".
"It's all rigged".No.
For the most part, it's "rigged" by an amazing feedback system of entity-less market forces.These "couple of dudes" you speak of..  they might make out well, but, they hardly make a bump in the grand scheme.
And most of these people fail.And the ones who succeed... I'd love to think that they are ruining the game for all of those "dumb investors".
But I highly doubt it.
Conspiracy exists in all aspects of the world, especially where there is money.
But it's not running the stock market.
The Market runs the stock market.Interesting comparison to the fashion industry, though.
It's definitely true with respect to the "demand" aspect.I would love to see how your skills of counter-culture help you win big at the stock market!
You're right.
The people who really win big, tend to invest contrarily.
However, I think the biggest losers are among the contrary.
It's all risk-management.
In stocks, you hear about the big winners and the big losers.
But on average, most people do, well, average.
I'd mod you up if I could.
You got me thinking and rambling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545988</id>
	<title>Getting the U.S. back from the grabbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269004620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every stupid monkey with a title, believes they now have manipulative control over some portion of the populace.<br>Our right to keep and bear arms had this consideration in mind.( don't start your stupid blather about word for word written, the intention of founding fathers was made clear historically and in their writings) Just every now and then someone should just outright kill (not murder, this is revolt) a stupid judge who forgets who he is and where he is. They should leave a note on the sacrifice detailing his crimes against the people of the several states as a warning to other likeminded judiciary.<br>This could also be expanded to anyone working for the government against the constitutional interests of the people. Be mad as hell, don't take it anymore. People fought and died for freedoms you don't have in your generation due to greed , corruption , and control mongering. Take it back and put their heads on pikes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every stupid monkey with a title , believes they now have manipulative control over some portion of the populace.Our right to keep and bear arms had this consideration in mind .
( do n't start your stupid blather about word for word written , the intention of founding fathers was made clear historically and in their writings ) Just every now and then someone should just outright kill ( not murder , this is revolt ) a stupid judge who forgets who he is and where he is .
They should leave a note on the sacrifice detailing his crimes against the people of the several states as a warning to other likeminded judiciary.This could also be expanded to anyone working for the government against the constitutional interests of the people .
Be mad as hell , do n't take it anymore .
People fought and died for freedoms you do n't have in your generation due to greed , corruption , and control mongering .
Take it back and put their heads on pikes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every stupid monkey with a title, believes they now have manipulative control over some portion of the populace.Our right to keep and bear arms had this consideration in mind.
( don't start your stupid blather about word for word written, the intention of founding fathers was made clear historically and in their writings) Just every now and then someone should just outright kill (not murder, this is revolt) a stupid judge who forgets who he is and where he is.
They should leave a note on the sacrifice detailing his crimes against the people of the several states as a warning to other likeminded judiciary.This could also be expanded to anyone working for the government against the constitutional interests of the people.
Be mad as hell, don't take it anymore.
People fought and died for freedoms you don't have in your generation due to greed , corruption , and control mongering.
Take it back and put their heads on pikes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545536</id>
	<title>Analysists??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269001800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it too much to ask to spell-check your stuff,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it too much to ask to spell-check your stuff , /. ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it too much to ask to spell-check your stuff, /.?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546686</id>
	<title>Why not release the information earlier?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I honestly don't understand this. Can someone explain this to me: If the analysts are concerned that their information is being disseminated before they can get it to their clients, why don't they just give the information their clients earlier? If someone else can aggregate all of their data and get it out at 0700, why is it so hard for the people who -made the data- get it out at 0630?<br>
If someone is paying me big bucks to determine the probability that it's going to rain today I'm going to make sure they know what I know ASAP. I'm not going to figure it out then go grab a latte and do a few Sudoko puzzles first while someone else sells my leaked meteorological research to somebody else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly do n't understand this .
Can someone explain this to me : If the analysts are concerned that their information is being disseminated before they can get it to their clients , why do n't they just give the information their clients earlier ?
If someone else can aggregate all of their data and get it out at 0700 , why is it so hard for the people who -made the data- get it out at 0630 ?
If someone is paying me big bucks to determine the probability that it 's going to rain today I 'm going to make sure they know what I know ASAP .
I 'm not going to figure it out then go grab a latte and do a few Sudoko puzzles first while someone else sells my leaked meteorological research to somebody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly don't understand this.
Can someone explain this to me: If the analysts are concerned that their information is being disseminated before they can get it to their clients, why don't they just give the information their clients earlier?
If someone else can aggregate all of their data and get it out at 0700, why is it so hard for the people who -made the data- get it out at 0630?
If someone is paying me big bucks to determine the probability that it's going to rain today I'm going to make sure they know what I know ASAP.
I'm not going to figure it out then go grab a latte and do a few Sudoko puzzles first while someone else sells my leaked meteorological research to somebody else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547456</id>
	<title>1st Amendment</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1269022080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The judiciary can't have it both ways when the Supreme Court is promoting an extreme interpretation of the First Amendment (i.e. unlimited corporate donations to political campaigns are OK).</p><p>Either the court system recognizes justifiable mitigation of an enumerated Right in order to prevent other Rights from being undermined by it, or they don't. What we heard from SCOTUS in 'Citizens United' was that free speech is absolute, so no more controls on obscenity, defamation, incitement, threats, etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and no controls on the Internet, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The judiciary ca n't have it both ways when the Supreme Court is promoting an extreme interpretation of the First Amendment ( i.e .
unlimited corporate donations to political campaigns are OK ) .Either the court system recognizes justifiable mitigation of an enumerated Right in order to prevent other Rights from being undermined by it , or they do n't .
What we heard from SCOTUS in 'Citizens United ' was that free speech is absolute , so no more controls on obscenity , defamation , incitement , threats , etc .
...and no controls on the Internet , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judiciary can't have it both ways when the Supreme Court is promoting an extreme interpretation of the First Amendment (i.e.
unlimited corporate donations to political campaigns are OK).Either the court system recognizes justifiable mitigation of an enumerated Right in order to prevent other Rights from being undermined by it, or they don't.
What we heard from SCOTUS in 'Citizens United' was that free speech is absolute, so no more controls on obscenity, defamation, incitement, threats, etc.
...and no controls on the Internet, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548664</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>Pinky's Brain</author>
	<datestamp>1269090540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well someone had time to act on it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... otherwise it wouldn't be leaked. The leaks are pure pump and dump, it simply works best if the "information" is widely disseminated immediately rather than staggered. If it's done staggered buying/dumping frenzies are less extreme.</p><p>Analyst reports are mostly pump and dump schemes to begin with of course, this is just a little meta pump and dump scheme on top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well someone had time to act on it ... otherwise it would n't be leaked .
The leaks are pure pump and dump , it simply works best if the " information " is widely disseminated immediately rather than staggered .
If it 's done staggered buying/dumping frenzies are less extreme.Analyst reports are mostly pump and dump schemes to begin with of course , this is just a little meta pump and dump scheme on top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well someone had time to act on it ... otherwise it wouldn't be leaked.
The leaks are pure pump and dump, it simply works best if the "information" is widely disseminated immediately rather than staggered.
If it's done staggered buying/dumping frenzies are less extreme.Analyst reports are mostly pump and dump schemes to begin with of course, this is just a little meta pump and dump scheme on top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547590</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1269024300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really like Google News because Google only crawls headlines that are published on public web sites, obeys robots.txt, only crawls subscription only sites with permission etc.</p><p>The critical element here seems to be that the stuff was being reported  before all the paying clients saw it. It is more as though Google bought subscriptions as an ordinary user and used those login details to spider a site behind a pay wall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really like Google News because Google only crawls headlines that are published on public web sites , obeys robots.txt , only crawls subscription only sites with permission etc.The critical element here seems to be that the stuff was being reported before all the paying clients saw it .
It is more as though Google bought subscriptions as an ordinary user and used those login details to spider a site behind a pay wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really like Google News because Google only crawls headlines that are published on public web sites, obeys robots.txt, only crawls subscription only sites with permission etc.The critical element here seems to be that the stuff was being reported  before all the paying clients saw it.
It is more as though Google bought subscriptions as an ordinary user and used those login details to spider a site behind a pay wall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546252</id>
	<title>Re:hur hur</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1269006780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a typo. Think Anal La Cysts...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a typo .
Think Anal La Cysts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a typo.
Think Anal La Cysts...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546850</id>
	<title>Re:Why stock markets are EXACTLY like fashion:</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1269013380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My motto: I don&rsquo;t follow trends. I MAKE them. (And so should you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div></blockquote><p>Pump and dump??? I'm just sayin...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My motto : I don    t follow trends .
I MAKE them .
( And so should you .
: ) Pump and dump ? ? ?
I 'm just sayin.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My motto: I don’t follow trends.
I MAKE them.
(And so should you.
:)Pump and dump???
I'm just sayin...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546564</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1269010440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Specifically that once Morgan Stanley publishes their stock upgrades and downgrades, it's pretty much public information.</p></div><p>That's not what was happening. Theflyonthewall.com was publishing information <i>before</i> it was made available, so that their subscribers could benefit from it before the clients of Morgan-Stanley et al.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically that once Morgan Stanley publishes their stock upgrades and downgrades , it 's pretty much public information.That 's not what was happening .
Theflyonthewall.com was publishing information before it was made available , so that their subscribers could benefit from it before the clients of Morgan-Stanley et al .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specifically that once Morgan Stanley publishes their stock upgrades and downgrades, it's pretty much public information.That's not what was happening.
Theflyonthewall.com was publishing information before it was made available, so that their subscribers could benefit from it before the clients of Morgan-Stanley et al.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546242</id>
	<title>No, that doesn't sound right.</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1269006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "players" in your story are the stocks.  But the folks complaining about the rapid dissemination of analyses are <i>the middlemen</i>--in your gambling analogy, this would be <i>the house</i>, the folks who want to rig the game in their favor.

</p><p>I think the court decision here is correct.  If the house sells exclusive quick access to its analyses, it's only reasonable for them to demand that they buyers don't republish it too quickly; the information makes it out in end eventually anyway.  The republishers are basically leeching off the brokers' analyses.

</p><p>It's important to point out how little important this is in the grand scheme of things.  Stock analyst reports are no better than random at predicting stock performance.  Timing the stock market doesn't produce superior returns, nor does short-term trading.  Paying for ultra-quick access to these reports in the expectation that they will help you time the market is not a good idea.

</p><p>Basically, to continue your analogy, the house is selling their predictions about which card's gonna be drawn next.  You can pay the normal fee, or you can pay extra if you want them to tell you sooner than they tell everybody else.  If you pick the second option, however, the object if you go around and publish your early-access info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " players " in your story are the stocks .
But the folks complaining about the rapid dissemination of analyses are the middlemen--in your gambling analogy , this would be the house , the folks who want to rig the game in their favor .
I think the court decision here is correct .
If the house sells exclusive quick access to its analyses , it 's only reasonable for them to demand that they buyers do n't republish it too quickly ; the information makes it out in end eventually anyway .
The republishers are basically leeching off the brokers ' analyses .
It 's important to point out how little important this is in the grand scheme of things .
Stock analyst reports are no better than random at predicting stock performance .
Timing the stock market does n't produce superior returns , nor does short-term trading .
Paying for ultra-quick access to these reports in the expectation that they will help you time the market is not a good idea .
Basically , to continue your analogy , the house is selling their predictions about which card 's gon na be drawn next .
You can pay the normal fee , or you can pay extra if you want them to tell you sooner than they tell everybody else .
If you pick the second option , however , the object if you go around and publish your early-access info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "players" in your story are the stocks.
But the folks complaining about the rapid dissemination of analyses are the middlemen--in your gambling analogy, this would be the house, the folks who want to rig the game in their favor.
I think the court decision here is correct.
If the house sells exclusive quick access to its analyses, it's only reasonable for them to demand that they buyers don't republish it too quickly; the information makes it out in end eventually anyway.
The republishers are basically leeching off the brokers' analyses.
It's important to point out how little important this is in the grand scheme of things.
Stock analyst reports are no better than random at predicting stock performance.
Timing the stock market doesn't produce superior returns, nor does short-term trading.
Paying for ultra-quick access to these reports in the expectation that they will help you time the market is not a good idea.
Basically, to continue your analogy, the house is selling their predictions about which card's gonna be drawn next.
You can pay the normal fee, or you can pay extra if you want them to tell you sooner than they tell everybody else.
If you pick the second option, however, the object if you go around and publish your early-access info.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546144</id>
	<title>Not news, but professional advice</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1269006000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's be clear on this, the issue has nothing to do with having up-to-the-second stocks news or not. It has nothing to do with an RSS aggregator having a feed from a news site. </p><p>It is about a news aggregator publicly disseminating PRIVATE information - buy/sell is professional advice and not news. Professional advice is subject to a two-party contract - it can be given confidentially. This is leaked advice. </p><p>Usually leaks aren't much of a problem because there's copyright and so on, they can't just reproduce the detail necessary to completely steal your advice usefully. But, in this case all that's really interesting is the company name and whether the word after it is "buy" or "sell". The entirety of the substance can be in the article. Contrast this with say the problem with the leak being that it is embarrassing - here the "news" is not the substance of the advice as advice, it is the fact that it is embarrassing. </p><p>Secondly, absolutely key to the value of that information is extreme timeliness. It only has value if you have that information before most other people, after which point the information becomes obsolete. Thirdly, the person giving the advice is also of high importance. "Sell Microsoft" has a greatly different value as information when Merrill Lynch says it than say, Bob down the pub. So people were paying thefly to get Merrill Lynch's advice more cheaply than buying it from Merrill Lynch.</p><p>The point the judge upheld is that thefly were not announcing news, they were reproducing a private professional opinion - and an opinion that was of value because of whose it was. Nobody wanted this as some retrospective news about some event, they wanted to know this information for the exact same reason and no other reason than those for which Merril Lynch's clients were paying for it.</p><p>This is little different than say, someone finding out the Coke formula, setting up a factory and marketing it as Coca Cola. The one difference is that in this case the product is "knowledge". The judge seems to have been quite savvy in differentiating the "product" and "knowledge" elements on the basis of the extent that timeliness was important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's be clear on this , the issue has nothing to do with having up-to-the-second stocks news or not .
It has nothing to do with an RSS aggregator having a feed from a news site .
It is about a news aggregator publicly disseminating PRIVATE information - buy/sell is professional advice and not news .
Professional advice is subject to a two-party contract - it can be given confidentially .
This is leaked advice .
Usually leaks are n't much of a problem because there 's copyright and so on , they ca n't just reproduce the detail necessary to completely steal your advice usefully .
But , in this case all that 's really interesting is the company name and whether the word after it is " buy " or " sell " .
The entirety of the substance can be in the article .
Contrast this with say the problem with the leak being that it is embarrassing - here the " news " is not the substance of the advice as advice , it is the fact that it is embarrassing .
Secondly , absolutely key to the value of that information is extreme timeliness .
It only has value if you have that information before most other people , after which point the information becomes obsolete .
Thirdly , the person giving the advice is also of high importance .
" Sell Microsoft " has a greatly different value as information when Merrill Lynch says it than say , Bob down the pub .
So people were paying thefly to get Merrill Lynch 's advice more cheaply than buying it from Merrill Lynch.The point the judge upheld is that thefly were not announcing news , they were reproducing a private professional opinion - and an opinion that was of value because of whose it was .
Nobody wanted this as some retrospective news about some event , they wanted to know this information for the exact same reason and no other reason than those for which Merril Lynch 's clients were paying for it.This is little different than say , someone finding out the Coke formula , setting up a factory and marketing it as Coca Cola .
The one difference is that in this case the product is " knowledge " .
The judge seems to have been quite savvy in differentiating the " product " and " knowledge " elements on the basis of the extent that timeliness was important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's be clear on this, the issue has nothing to do with having up-to-the-second stocks news or not.
It has nothing to do with an RSS aggregator having a feed from a news site.
It is about a news aggregator publicly disseminating PRIVATE information - buy/sell is professional advice and not news.
Professional advice is subject to a two-party contract - it can be given confidentially.
This is leaked advice.
Usually leaks aren't much of a problem because there's copyright and so on, they can't just reproduce the detail necessary to completely steal your advice usefully.
But, in this case all that's really interesting is the company name and whether the word after it is "buy" or "sell".
The entirety of the substance can be in the article.
Contrast this with say the problem with the leak being that it is embarrassing - here the "news" is not the substance of the advice as advice, it is the fact that it is embarrassing.
Secondly, absolutely key to the value of that information is extreme timeliness.
It only has value if you have that information before most other people, after which point the information becomes obsolete.
Thirdly, the person giving the advice is also of high importance.
"Sell Microsoft" has a greatly different value as information when Merrill Lynch says it than say, Bob down the pub.
So people were paying thefly to get Merrill Lynch's advice more cheaply than buying it from Merrill Lynch.The point the judge upheld is that thefly were not announcing news, they were reproducing a private professional opinion - and an opinion that was of value because of whose it was.
Nobody wanted this as some retrospective news about some event, they wanted to know this information for the exact same reason and no other reason than those for which Merril Lynch's clients were paying for it.This is little different than say, someone finding out the Coke formula, setting up a factory and marketing it as Coca Cola.
The one difference is that in this case the product is "knowledge".
The judge seems to have been quite savvy in differentiating the "product" and "knowledge" elements on the basis of the extent that timeliness was important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546044</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>dnnrly</author>
	<datestamp>1269005100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The short answer is money.</p><p>The long answer is that traders start at 7am by reading reports and recomendations.</p><p>They traders make decisions about what they will trade and what position they will take early on based on this information.<br>They will pay a LOT of money to money to get this information as early as possible.<br>The information providers want to be able to sell this valuable data and analysis.</p><p>This won't affect day traders so much, who try to squeeze trades in between the various peaks and troughs in prices during the day (playing with graphs basically).</p><p>What this means is that the people that are releasing this information will only have to wait until 10am and the information will still be released into the public domain that morning anyway.<br>It is is very important to trades who are trying to take long term positions and want to get a price that makes it worth while to trade the stock. (if you have to pick a trader take side with this is the one you want.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The short answer is money.The long answer is that traders start at 7am by reading reports and recomendations.They traders make decisions about what they will trade and what position they will take early on based on this information.They will pay a LOT of money to money to get this information as early as possible.The information providers want to be able to sell this valuable data and analysis.This wo n't affect day traders so much , who try to squeeze trades in between the various peaks and troughs in prices during the day ( playing with graphs basically ) .What this means is that the people that are releasing this information will only have to wait until 10am and the information will still be released into the public domain that morning anyway.It is is very important to trades who are trying to take long term positions and want to get a price that makes it worth while to trade the stock .
( if you have to pick a trader take side with this is the one you want .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The short answer is money.The long answer is that traders start at 7am by reading reports and recomendations.They traders make decisions about what they will trade and what position they will take early on based on this information.They will pay a LOT of money to money to get this information as early as possible.The information providers want to be able to sell this valuable data and analysis.This won't affect day traders so much, who try to squeeze trades in between the various peaks and troughs in prices during the day (playing with graphs basically).What this means is that the people that are releasing this information will only have to wait until 10am and the information will still be released into the public domain that morning anyway.It is is very important to trades who are trying to take long term positions and want to get a price that makes it worth while to trade the stock.
(if you have to pick a trader take side with this is the one you want.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548050</id>
	<title>What you can say and when you can say it</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1269075660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel that society as a whole and my own safety and welfare specifically has not improved thanks to the government deciding what private citizens can and can't say (along with when they can and can't say it).

I'm not much of a slippery slope guy, but I feel that ANY encroachment of the government on free speech outside of our current laws is a surefire way to fall down it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel that society as a whole and my own safety and welfare specifically has not improved thanks to the government deciding what private citizens can and ca n't say ( along with when they can and ca n't say it ) .
I 'm not much of a slippery slope guy , but I feel that ANY encroachment of the government on free speech outside of our current laws is a surefire way to fall down it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel that society as a whole and my own safety and welfare specifically has not improved thanks to the government deciding what private citizens can and can't say (along with when they can and can't say it).
I'm not much of a slippery slope guy, but I feel that ANY encroachment of the government on free speech outside of our current laws is a surefire way to fall down it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547464</id>
	<title>Re:Easy Solution...</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1269022260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know it is fashionable to claim that all this stuff is new, and that all businesses have to do if move offshore, but nothing is that simple.
<p>
The value of stock information, AFAIR, have always been based on time.  I can get all sorts of information delayed some minimum amount of time, but I have to pay to get near real time information.  If I try to republish this information, I get sued.  This has been the case forever.  The powers that be are going to do everything they can to keep this status quo because this is how the houses generate a profit.  By knowing things before the average person does.
</p><p>
The only way that the US would drive the financial industry out of the country is by allowing real time publication of data.  It is true that some smaller businesses might be driven out, but what do we care if a few people and a few servers move to Costa Rica where they have to pay huge taxes so that everyone can get socialized health care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it is fashionable to claim that all this stuff is new , and that all businesses have to do if move offshore , but nothing is that simple .
The value of stock information , AFAIR , have always been based on time .
I can get all sorts of information delayed some minimum amount of time , but I have to pay to get near real time information .
If I try to republish this information , I get sued .
This has been the case forever .
The powers that be are going to do everything they can to keep this status quo because this is how the houses generate a profit .
By knowing things before the average person does .
The only way that the US would drive the financial industry out of the country is by allowing real time publication of data .
It is true that some smaller businesses might be driven out , but what do we care if a few people and a few servers move to Costa Rica where they have to pay huge taxes so that everyone can get socialized health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it is fashionable to claim that all this stuff is new, and that all businesses have to do if move offshore, but nothing is that simple.
The value of stock information, AFAIR, have always been based on time.
I can get all sorts of information delayed some minimum amount of time, but I have to pay to get near real time information.
If I try to republish this information, I get sued.
This has been the case forever.
The powers that be are going to do everything they can to keep this status quo because this is how the houses generate a profit.
By knowing things before the average person does.
The only way that the US would drive the financial industry out of the country is by allowing real time publication of data.
It is true that some smaller businesses might be driven out, but what do we care if a few people and a few servers move to Costa Rica where they have to pay huge taxes so that everyone can get socialized health care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546616</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1269011100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they're basically saying you can't take public information and put it up on your own website.</p><p>This essentially guarantees that flyonthewall will win the appeal. They just had a judge who doesn't understand what the internet is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're basically saying you ca n't take public information and put it up on your own website.This essentially guarantees that flyonthewall will win the appeal .
They just had a judge who does n't understand what the internet is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're basically saying you can't take public information and put it up on your own website.This essentially guarantees that flyonthewall will win the appeal.
They just had a judge who doesn't understand what the internet is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546274</id>
	<title>Rigged Market</title>
	<author>CuteSteveJobs</author>
	<datestamp>1269007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The current (well-supported) suspicion of banks and stock traders gives the whole article a sinister patina, e.g. "the banks were keeping upgrades and downgrades secret, but theflyonthewall was exposing the information before the brandy-and-cigars set could fully exploit it!"</p><p>So we want the public to be well-informed, but not too well informed? This will let the investment bankers keep their dirty little secrets secret for just a bit longer while they offload stock. The public won't know until the stock price dives. Preventing these *facts* from being published flies in the face of an open society. It shows what a dirty rigged game the stock market plays, and how the judiciary and congress plays along with it.</p><p>Another example is High Frequency Trading aka Zero Latency trading lets investment banks (not you) set up their computers right next to the NYSE's computers so they get advance notice of a few milliseconds of buy orders. They then buy big and when the other orders come in, the investment banks have already bought all the stock and onsell with a fat mark up. Amazing what these guys get away with, and that congress and the public let them get away with it. Despite the bawling about the bailout, the banks got everything they wanted and are still paying themselves obscene bonuses. Politicians profess outrage but never force their hand. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html</a> [nytimes.com]</p><p>The whole market is so rigged the only way the public can make a profit is when *everything* is going up. A good quote by boom roadkill: "We used to we were geniuses the stocks we bought always went up. Then when the bubble burst we looked back and realized it didn't matter what we bought, because everything went up anyway."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The current ( well-supported ) suspicion of banks and stock traders gives the whole article a sinister patina , e.g .
" the banks were keeping upgrades and downgrades secret , but theflyonthewall was exposing the information before the brandy-and-cigars set could fully exploit it !
" So we want the public to be well-informed , but not too well informed ?
This will let the investment bankers keep their dirty little secrets secret for just a bit longer while they offload stock .
The public wo n't know until the stock price dives .
Preventing these * facts * from being published flies in the face of an open society .
It shows what a dirty rigged game the stock market plays , and how the judiciary and congress plays along with it.Another example is High Frequency Trading aka Zero Latency trading lets investment banks ( not you ) set up their computers right next to the NYSE 's computers so they get advance notice of a few milliseconds of buy orders .
They then buy big and when the other orders come in , the investment banks have already bought all the stock and onsell with a fat mark up .
Amazing what these guys get away with , and that congress and the public let them get away with it .
Despite the bawling about the bailout , the banks got everything they wanted and are still paying themselves obscene bonuses .
Politicians profess outrage but never force their hand .
http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html [ nytimes.com ] The whole market is so rigged the only way the public can make a profit is when * everything * is going up .
A good quote by boom roadkill : " We used to we were geniuses the stocks we bought always went up .
Then when the bubble burst we looked back and realized it did n't matter what we bought , because everything went up anyway .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The current (well-supported) suspicion of banks and stock traders gives the whole article a sinister patina, e.g.
"the banks were keeping upgrades and downgrades secret, but theflyonthewall was exposing the information before the brandy-and-cigars set could fully exploit it!
"So we want the public to be well-informed, but not too well informed?
This will let the investment bankers keep their dirty little secrets secret for just a bit longer while they offload stock.
The public won't know until the stock price dives.
Preventing these *facts* from being published flies in the face of an open society.
It shows what a dirty rigged game the stock market plays, and how the judiciary and congress plays along with it.Another example is High Frequency Trading aka Zero Latency trading lets investment banks (not you) set up their computers right next to the NYSE's computers so they get advance notice of a few milliseconds of buy orders.
They then buy big and when the other orders come in, the investment banks have already bought all the stock and onsell with a fat mark up.
Amazing what these guys get away with, and that congress and the public let them get away with it.
Despite the bawling about the bailout, the banks got everything they wanted and are still paying themselves obscene bonuses.
Politicians profess outrage but never force their hand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html [nytimes.com]The whole market is so rigged the only way the public can make a profit is when *everything* is going up.
A good quote by boom roadkill: "We used to we were geniuses the stocks we bought always went up.
Then when the bubble burst we looked back and realized it didn't matter what we bought, because everything went up anyway.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547186</id>
	<title>Re:Not news, but professional advice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is little different than say, someone finding out the Coke formula, setting up a factory and marketing it as Coca Cola.</p></div><p>Nonsense.  That's trademark infringement.  This is like someone finding out the Coke formula, setting up a factory, and marketing it as another cola drink made using the Coke formula.  Which, imho, should be perfectly legal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is little different than say , someone finding out the Coke formula , setting up a factory and marketing it as Coca Cola.Nonsense .
That 's trademark infringement .
This is like someone finding out the Coke formula , setting up a factory , and marketing it as another cola drink made using the Coke formula .
Which , imho , should be perfectly legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is little different than say, someone finding out the Coke formula, setting up a factory and marketing it as Coca Cola.Nonsense.
That's trademark infringement.
This is like someone finding out the Coke formula, setting up a factory, and marketing it as another cola drink made using the Coke formula.
Which, imho, should be perfectly legal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548774</id>
	<title>Re:Since when were Morgan and Merrill news agencie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269092280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have he solution: the opinion should be expressed by a Rapper, then it could be copyright until 25 years after the Rapper is shot in a drive by. <p>Ideally, the Rappers works should be released on DVDs protected by DCMA, so the innocent don't actually have to listen to pump-and-dump promotion on MTV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have he solution : the opinion should be expressed by a Rapper , then it could be copyright until 25 years after the Rapper is shot in a drive by .
Ideally , the Rappers works should be released on DVDs protected by DCMA , so the innocent do n't actually have to listen to pump-and-dump promotion on MTV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have he solution: the opinion should be expressed by a Rapper, then it could be copyright until 25 years after the Rapper is shot in a drive by.
Ideally, the Rappers works should be released on DVDs protected by DCMA, so the innocent don't actually have to listen to pump-and-dump promotion on MTV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547162</id>
	<title>Re:Not news, but professional advice</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1269017040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This ruling probably is a good reading of the law as it currently is written. I can think of several possible problems with this interpretation of the law, but I can see it as correct.<br>
However, it destroys the theory behind the markets. In the ideal market, everybody has perfect knowledge which means they trade accordingly. The information that this ruling says is protected from distribution is important information about the correct pricing of stocks on the market. This ruling therefore insists that the market be imperfect. Imperfections in the market are one of the key reasons for market bubbles. <br>
I can see in my mind exactly why this ruling encourages economic disruptions, but I am tired and every attempt I have made to express those ideas doesn't come out clearly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This ruling probably is a good reading of the law as it currently is written .
I can think of several possible problems with this interpretation of the law , but I can see it as correct .
However , it destroys the theory behind the markets .
In the ideal market , everybody has perfect knowledge which means they trade accordingly .
The information that this ruling says is protected from distribution is important information about the correct pricing of stocks on the market .
This ruling therefore insists that the market be imperfect .
Imperfections in the market are one of the key reasons for market bubbles .
I can see in my mind exactly why this ruling encourages economic disruptions , but I am tired and every attempt I have made to express those ideas does n't come out clearly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ruling probably is a good reading of the law as it currently is written.
I can think of several possible problems with this interpretation of the law, but I can see it as correct.
However, it destroys the theory behind the markets.
In the ideal market, everybody has perfect knowledge which means they trade accordingly.
The information that this ruling says is protected from distribution is important information about the correct pricing of stocks on the market.
This ruling therefore insists that the market be imperfect.
Imperfections in the market are one of the key reasons for market bubbles.
I can see in my mind exactly why this ruling encourages economic disruptions, but I am tired and every attempt I have made to express those ideas doesn't come out clearly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31549314</id>
	<title>Re:hur hur</title>
	<author>Notegg Nornoggin</author>
	<datestamp>1269098220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What are analysists?"</p><p>They's peoples what like *analyses* thinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What are analysists ?
" They 's peoples what like * analyses * thinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What are analysists?
"They's peoples what like *analyses* thinks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546166</id>
	<title>Why stock markets are EXACTLY like fashion:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269006180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. There are a couple of dudes, who just make up the latest &ldquo;trends&rdquo;.<br>2. Which of course is where they have their money in.<br>3. Now the dumb people who listen to them buy those s(t)ocks.<br>4. And the prophecy fulfills itself. (Yep, that&rsquo;s the &ldquo;...&rdquo; point in all those plans.)<br>5. PROFIT!</p><p>Of course in stocks, after it starts to rise because of the dumb people, the more intelligent got a real reason to invest, and so it goes even higher. In fashion on the other hand people do it because they are such losers that they think they would be left out and not accepted otherwise.</p><p>So it&rsquo;s all rigged. But if you know a bit of social engineering, and are really full of yourself, you can be a rigger too.</p><p>My motto: I don&rsquo;t follow trends. I MAKE them. (And so should you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
There are a couple of dudes , who just make up the latest    trends    .2 .
Which of course is where they have their money in.3 .
Now the dumb people who listen to them buy those s ( t ) ocks.4 .
And the prophecy fulfills itself .
( Yep , that    s the    ...    point in all those plans. ) 5 .
PROFIT ! Of course in stocks , after it starts to rise because of the dumb people , the more intelligent got a real reason to invest , and so it goes even higher .
In fashion on the other hand people do it because they are such losers that they think they would be left out and not accepted otherwise.So it    s all rigged .
But if you know a bit of social engineering , and are really full of yourself , you can be a rigger too.My motto : I don    t follow trends .
I MAKE them .
( And so should you .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
There are a couple of dudes, who just make up the latest “trends”.2.
Which of course is where they have their money in.3.
Now the dumb people who listen to them buy those s(t)ocks.4.
And the prophecy fulfills itself.
(Yep, that’s the “...” point in all those plans.)5.
PROFIT!Of course in stocks, after it starts to rise because of the dumb people, the more intelligent got a real reason to invest, and so it goes even higher.
In fashion on the other hand people do it because they are such losers that they think they would be left out and not accepted otherwise.So it’s all rigged.
But if you know a bit of social engineering, and are really full of yourself, you can be a rigger too.My motto: I don’t follow trends.
I MAKE them.
(And so should you.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548940</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269094140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The whole point of having a stock market is to get money to the people who can make the best use of it."</p><p>Bullshit.</p><p>Once a company has been floated and the shares are available in the market place all subsequent trading in those shares is merely a case of the rich squabbling between themselves over which of them is to have the privilege of creaming off the profit from the company.</p><p>Share price speculation does not benefit the company whose shares are traded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The whole point of having a stock market is to get money to the people who can make the best use of it .
" Bullshit.Once a company has been floated and the shares are available in the market place all subsequent trading in those shares is merely a case of the rich squabbling between themselves over which of them is to have the privilege of creaming off the profit from the company.Share price speculation does not benefit the company whose shares are traded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The whole point of having a stock market is to get money to the people who can make the best use of it.
"Bullshit.Once a company has been floated and the shares are available in the market place all subsequent trading in those shares is merely a case of the rich squabbling between themselves over which of them is to have the privilege of creaming off the profit from the company.Share price speculation does not benefit the company whose shares are traded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545776</id>
	<title>No, insider trading</title>
	<author>gr8\_phk</author>
	<datestamp>1269003300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not a trade secret when you share ratings with your clients several hours before you release information to the public. From TFA:<blockquote><div><p>This time frame preserves incentives for the firms to create and disseminate research reports to their investor clients, while still recognizing the inevitable, fast-moving, and widespread informal communication of recommendation on Wall Street.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Obviously these reports will affect prices, so you tell clients, wait a bit so they can react, and then tell the public. That's market manipulation plain and simple. A more fair ruling would say they have to release the reports publicly at the same time they tell their clients. But then this is a Manhattan federal judge who knows who he works for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a trade secret when you share ratings with your clients several hours before you release information to the public .
From TFA : This time frame preserves incentives for the firms to create and disseminate research reports to their investor clients , while still recognizing the inevitable , fast-moving , and widespread informal communication of recommendation on Wall Street .
Obviously these reports will affect prices , so you tell clients , wait a bit so they can react , and then tell the public .
That 's market manipulation plain and simple .
A more fair ruling would say they have to release the reports publicly at the same time they tell their clients .
But then this is a Manhattan federal judge who knows who he works for ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a trade secret when you share ratings with your clients several hours before you release information to the public.
From TFA:This time frame preserves incentives for the firms to create and disseminate research reports to their investor clients, while still recognizing the inevitable, fast-moving, and widespread informal communication of recommendation on Wall Street.
Obviously these reports will affect prices, so you tell clients, wait a bit so they can react, and then tell the public.
That's market manipulation plain and simple.
A more fair ruling would say they have to release the reports publicly at the same time they tell their clients.
But then this is a Manhattan federal judge who knows who he works for ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31549022</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269095160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The whole point of having a stock market is to get money to the people who can make the best use of it. </p></div><p>That may be why is was created, but it isn't the main reason for it these days. The stock market exists to skim value out of the economy for those who don't actually create value of their own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point of having a stock market is to get money to the people who can make the best use of it .
That may be why is was created , but it is n't the main reason for it these days .
The stock market exists to skim value out of the economy for those who do n't actually create value of their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point of having a stock market is to get money to the people who can make the best use of it.
That may be why is was created, but it isn't the main reason for it these days.
The stock market exists to skim value out of the economy for those who don't actually create value of their own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546778</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And as we all know, its wrong to have insider information... unless you are a high roller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And as we all know , its wrong to have insider information... unless you are a high roller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as we all know, its wrong to have insider information... unless you are a high roller.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546936</id>
	<title>Bah! Humbug.</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1269014400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's no big deal.

They'll just need to publish them beyond the reach of the federal justice, which starts 0.0001 from the US border.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no big deal .
They 'll just need to publish them beyond the reach of the federal justice , which starts 0.0001 from the US border .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no big deal.
They'll just need to publish them beyond the reach of the federal justice, which starts 0.0001 from the US border.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546754</id>
	<title>Free!!!!!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269012540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>            Now look at our courts. Freedom of information is real good but only when it is stale and less useful! Our darling government in its infinite wisdom now decides that its feeble minded citizens must not know any information that might cause excitement or rapid action. Or is this supposedly done to help the banks, so dear to us all, for their recent sensitivities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now look at our courts .
Freedom of information is real good but only when it is stale and less useful !
Our darling government in its infinite wisdom now decides that its feeble minded citizens must not know any information that might cause excitement or rapid action .
Or is this supposedly done to help the banks , so dear to us all , for their recent sensitivities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>            Now look at our courts.
Freedom of information is real good but only when it is stale and less useful!
Our darling government in its infinite wisdom now decides that its feeble minded citizens must not know any information that might cause excitement or rapid action.
Or is this supposedly done to help the banks, so dear to us all, for their recent sensitivities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545624</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1269002400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not stock monkey either, but I think this has to do with freedom of information. Specifically that once Morgan Stanley publishes their stock upgrades and downgrades, it's pretty much public information. That fact that this information has been barred is the item of interest.</p><p>From the Morgan/Stanley side, it might be appropriate to call it a trade secret. From the end user side, it becomes common knowledge so unless there are agreements with each user not to leak the knowledge, it seems like this law is invalid to my eyes. It seems to me that they are legislating a solution  for Morgan/Stanley's lack of security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not stock monkey either , but I think this has to do with freedom of information .
Specifically that once Morgan Stanley publishes their stock upgrades and downgrades , it 's pretty much public information .
That fact that this information has been barred is the item of interest.From the Morgan/Stanley side , it might be appropriate to call it a trade secret .
From the end user side , it becomes common knowledge so unless there are agreements with each user not to leak the knowledge , it seems like this law is invalid to my eyes .
It seems to me that they are legislating a solution for Morgan/Stanley 's lack of security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not stock monkey either, but I think this has to do with freedom of information.
Specifically that once Morgan Stanley publishes their stock upgrades and downgrades, it's pretty much public information.
That fact that this information has been barred is the item of interest.From the Morgan/Stanley side, it might be appropriate to call it a trade secret.
From the end user side, it becomes common knowledge so unless there are agreements with each user not to leak the knowledge, it seems like this law is invalid to my eyes.
It seems to me that they are legislating a solution  for Morgan/Stanley's lack of security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547544</id>
	<title>Re:Why stock markets are EXACTLY like fashion:</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1269023760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fashion on the other hand people do it because they are such losers that they think they would be left out and not accepted otherwise.</p></div><p>Newsflash: For the past 20 years it has been extremely unfashionable (unaccepted) to be poor or even just lower-middle class in our society. Finance may be more closely related to fashion than you say it is, except with fashion the barrier to starting ones own trends (using textiles, thread and dyes) is often much lower.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fashion on the other hand people do it because they are such losers that they think they would be left out and not accepted otherwise.Newsflash : For the past 20 years it has been extremely unfashionable ( unaccepted ) to be poor or even just lower-middle class in our society .
Finance may be more closely related to fashion than you say it is , except with fashion the barrier to starting ones own trends ( using textiles , thread and dyes ) is often much lower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fashion on the other hand people do it because they are such losers that they think they would be left out and not accepted otherwise.Newsflash: For the past 20 years it has been extremely unfashionable (unaccepted) to be poor or even just lower-middle class in our society.
Finance may be more closely related to fashion than you say it is, except with fashion the barrier to starting ones own trends (using textiles, thread and dyes) is often much lower.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518</id>
	<title>Ok.  Help me out here.</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1269001680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm having a brain fart at the moment.  Anyone care to explain to a noob what kind of implications this could have?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm having a brain fart at the moment .
Anyone care to explain to a noob what kind of implications this could have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm having a brain fart at the moment.
Anyone care to explain to a noob what kind of implications this could have?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545764</id>
	<title>It seems theflyonthewall won't lift</title>
	<author>Bugamn</author>
	<datestamp>1269003180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SELL, SELL, SELL!</htmltext>
<tokenext>SELL , SELL , SELL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SELL, SELL, SELL!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545520</id>
	<title>Bah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269001680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have nothing to say on this</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have nothing to say on this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have nothing to say on this</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546382</id>
	<title>Re:Ok. Help me out here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole point of having a stock market is to get money to the people who can make the best use of it. What this ruling does, as far as I can tell, is impede that process by preventing the dissemination of useful information about who can make the best use of investment capital. In short, while this might or might not be a good ruling from the standpoint of enforcing the law as it exists today, it runs completely counter to the whole point of having a stock market. There should be absolutely no impediment to disseminating as widely as possible information about publicly traded stocks unless it is for an exceptionally good reason (like national security level good).<br>Going even further, by restricting information like this they are essentially allowing the major players in the stock market to manipulate stock prices. I tell my clients that I will claim stock X will go up and the market listens to me. I do this in such a way that my clients can by their stocks first. Stock goes up because I say it will and I'm a major player. Then my clients sell their stock making a nice tidy profit, all the while I have less incentive to provide good advice because assuming I'm even vaguely plausible this scheme will work. The law is protecting this kind of thing when it should be prohibiting it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point of having a stock market is to get money to the people who can make the best use of it .
What this ruling does , as far as I can tell , is impede that process by preventing the dissemination of useful information about who can make the best use of investment capital .
In short , while this might or might not be a good ruling from the standpoint of enforcing the law as it exists today , it runs completely counter to the whole point of having a stock market .
There should be absolutely no impediment to disseminating as widely as possible information about publicly traded stocks unless it is for an exceptionally good reason ( like national security level good ) .Going even further , by restricting information like this they are essentially allowing the major players in the stock market to manipulate stock prices .
I tell my clients that I will claim stock X will go up and the market listens to me .
I do this in such a way that my clients can by their stocks first .
Stock goes up because I say it will and I 'm a major player .
Then my clients sell their stock making a nice tidy profit , all the while I have less incentive to provide good advice because assuming I 'm even vaguely plausible this scheme will work .
The law is protecting this kind of thing when it should be prohibiting it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point of having a stock market is to get money to the people who can make the best use of it.
What this ruling does, as far as I can tell, is impede that process by preventing the dissemination of useful information about who can make the best use of investment capital.
In short, while this might or might not be a good ruling from the standpoint of enforcing the law as it exists today, it runs completely counter to the whole point of having a stock market.
There should be absolutely no impediment to disseminating as widely as possible information about publicly traded stocks unless it is for an exceptionally good reason (like national security level good).Going even further, by restricting information like this they are essentially allowing the major players in the stock market to manipulate stock prices.
I tell my clients that I will claim stock X will go up and the market listens to me.
I do this in such a way that my clients can by their stocks first.
Stock goes up because I say it will and I'm a major player.
Then my clients sell their stock making a nice tidy profit, all the while I have less incentive to provide good advice because assuming I'm even vaguely plausible this scheme will work.
The law is protecting this kind of thing when it should be prohibiting it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31549022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31549314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31549054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_2323258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31549314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31549022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546778
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31549054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31547590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31548774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31545988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_2323258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_2323258.31546936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
