<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_21_1634223</id>
	<title>Sun Microsystems To Cut 3,000 Jobs As Oracle Deal Drags On</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256145300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>afgun writes with news that <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/20/MNU31A8AUB.DTL&amp;type=business">Sun will be shedding 3,000 jobs</a>, roughly 10\% of their workforce, as they continue to lose money while waiting for EC regulators to approve their acquisition by Oracle. "Oracle Chief Executive Officer Larry Ellison said Sept. 22 that Sun is <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&amp;sid=aRNZdYUUgQcQ">losing about $100 million a month</a> as the transaction is delayed by the EU probe." James Staten, an analyst with Forrester, said, "The longer a cloud of uncertainty hangs over Sun, that drives customers into delays of purchases or into the hands of competitors. This is a very trying time for Sun and Oracle as they wait for an answer." A spokesman for EU Competition Comissioner Neelie Kroes said today that she "expressed her disappointment that Oracle failed to produce, despite repeated requests, either hard evidence that there were no competition problems or a proposal for a remedy to the competition concerns identified by the commission," and that "a rapid solution lies in Oracle's hands."</htmltext>
<tokenext>afgun writes with news that Sun will be shedding 3,000 jobs , roughly 10 \ % of their workforce , as they continue to lose money while waiting for EC regulators to approve their acquisition by Oracle .
" Oracle Chief Executive Officer Larry Ellison said Sept. 22 that Sun is losing about $ 100 million a month as the transaction is delayed by the EU probe .
" James Staten , an analyst with Forrester , said , " The longer a cloud of uncertainty hangs over Sun , that drives customers into delays of purchases or into the hands of competitors .
This is a very trying time for Sun and Oracle as they wait for an answer .
" A spokesman for EU Competition Comissioner Neelie Kroes said today that she " expressed her disappointment that Oracle failed to produce , despite repeated requests , either hard evidence that there were no competition problems or a proposal for a remedy to the competition concerns identified by the commission , " and that " a rapid solution lies in Oracle 's hands .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>afgun writes with news that Sun will be shedding 3,000 jobs, roughly 10\% of their workforce, as they continue to lose money while waiting for EC regulators to approve their acquisition by Oracle.
"Oracle Chief Executive Officer Larry Ellison said Sept. 22 that Sun is losing about $100 million a month as the transaction is delayed by the EU probe.
" James Staten, an analyst with Forrester, said, "The longer a cloud of uncertainty hangs over Sun, that drives customers into delays of purchases or into the hands of competitors.
This is a very trying time for Sun and Oracle as they wait for an answer.
" A spokesman for EU Competition Comissioner Neelie Kroes said today that she "expressed her disappointment that Oracle failed to produce, despite repeated requests, either hard evidence that there were no competition problems or a proposal for a remedy to the competition concerns identified by the commission," and that "a rapid solution lies in Oracle's hands.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827193</id>
	<title>not enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256156160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand the math.  Even if each of those jobs paid $2000/wk (unlikely), that's only a savings of $6M/wk.  That won't make enough of a dent if they're losing $100M/month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the math .
Even if each of those jobs paid $ 2000/wk ( unlikely ) , that 's only a savings of $ 6M/wk .
That wo n't make enough of a dent if they 're losing $ 100M/month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the math.
Even if each of those jobs paid $2000/wk (unlikely), that's only a savings of $6M/wk.
That won't make enough of a dent if they're losing $100M/month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826101</id>
	<title>Re:Regulatory agencies run amok</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1256151660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sun will be basically dead, and barely have any role as the competitor, anyways.</p></div><p>So, if the situation is unchanged, whats the rush?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun will be basically dead , and barely have any role as the competitor , anyways.So , if the situation is unchanged , whats the rush ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun will be basically dead, and barely have any role as the competitor, anyways.So, if the situation is unchanged, whats the rush?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825711</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256150220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Sun and Oracle want to be able to sell their products in Europe.  If they decided not to then, by all means, they can ignore the EU's authority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Sun and Oracle want to be able to sell their products in Europe .
If they decided not to then , by all means , they can ignore the EU 's authority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Sun and Oracle want to be able to sell their products in Europe.
If they decided not to then, by all means, they can ignore the EU's authority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829741</id>
	<title>Oh the irony ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256124960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a certain irony that a company is being driven into bankruptcy (yeah they are a way from that, but that is where the trajectory points) by a process accusing them of being so dominant the market cannot operate fairly.   It really can't be both ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a certain irony that a company is being driven into bankruptcy ( yeah they are a way from that , but that is where the trajectory points ) by a process accusing them of being so dominant the market can not operate fairly .
It really ca n't be both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a certain irony that a company is being driven into bankruptcy (yeah they are a way from that, but that is where the trajectory points) by a process accusing them of being so dominant the market cannot operate fairly.
It really can't be both ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826237</id>
	<title>the news now consists of all form of FUDgePacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256152260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as opposed to acknowledging stuff that really matters. the corepirate nazis are going DOWn the (you?)tubes anyhow, so flashing their phony #'s about is just more bad theater. robbIE has deleted most of our posts today. what a surprise.</p><p>we're thinking he chipped in on this program,<br>yro<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. censorship (Score:mynuts won, the 'king' is still a fink?)<br>by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21, @09:36AM (#29822581)</p><p>robbIE deleted a post with this reference moments ago. what a cad.</p><p>http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/21/new.york.subway.ads/index.html<br>FUDge on bobert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as opposed to acknowledging stuff that really matters .
the corepirate nazis are going DOWn the ( you ?
) tubes anyhow , so flashing their phony # 's about is just more bad theater .
robbIE has deleted most of our posts today .
what a surprise.we 're thinking he chipped in on this program,yro / .
censorship ( Score : mynuts won , the 'king ' is still a fink ?
) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 , @ 09 : 36AM ( # 29822581 ) robbIE deleted a post with this reference moments ago .
what a cad.http : //www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/21/new.york.subway.ads/index.htmlFUDge on bobert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as opposed to acknowledging stuff that really matters.
the corepirate nazis are going DOWn the (you?
)tubes anyhow, so flashing their phony #'s about is just more bad theater.
robbIE has deleted most of our posts today.
what a surprise.we're thinking he chipped in on this program,yro /.
censorship (Score:mynuts won, the 'king' is still a fink?
)by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21, @09:36AM (#29822581)robbIE deleted a post with this reference moments ago.
what a cad.http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/21/new.york.subway.ads/index.htmlFUDge on bobert.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828023</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256116560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>funny<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>funny : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>funny :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256153100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do these companies do with all of these employees?  They had 30K and can cut 3K at the drop of a hat?  Adobe has about 7K, Google 20K, Apple 32K, Microsoft 91K and IBM nearly 400K!!  What do all of these people do?

By way of comparison, Harvard has 13K and GM had about 245K.  How many TPS reports do 10K employees generate?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do these companies do with all of these employees ?
They had 30K and can cut 3K at the drop of a hat ?
Adobe has about 7K , Google 20K , Apple 32K , Microsoft 91K and IBM nearly 400K ! !
What do all of these people do ?
By way of comparison , Harvard has 13K and GM had about 245K .
How many TPS reports do 10K employees generate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do these companies do with all of these employees?
They had 30K and can cut 3K at the drop of a hat?
Adobe has about 7K, Google 20K, Apple 32K, Microsoft 91K and IBM nearly 400K!!
What do all of these people do?
By way of comparison, Harvard has 13K and GM had about 245K.
How many TPS reports do 10K employees generate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29835027</id>
	<title>Silly government</title>
	<author>jimmy\_dean</author>
	<datestamp>1256225760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem here is that the EC wants to have it's hand in everything. There is no such thing as a monopoly except that which is granted by a sovereign government. Yes there are highly uncompetitive markets, but you still always have a choice not to buy something. I'm sick and tired of governments getting in the way of things that they have no business butting into. It's not their company...it's private (non-municipal) and they need to stay away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem here is that the EC wants to have it 's hand in everything .
There is no such thing as a monopoly except that which is granted by a sovereign government .
Yes there are highly uncompetitive markets , but you still always have a choice not to buy something .
I 'm sick and tired of governments getting in the way of things that they have no business butting into .
It 's not their company...it 's private ( non-municipal ) and they need to stay away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem here is that the EC wants to have it's hand in everything.
There is no such thing as a monopoly except that which is granted by a sovereign government.
Yes there are highly uncompetitive markets, but you still always have a choice not to buy something.
I'm sick and tired of governments getting in the way of things that they have no business butting into.
It's not their company...it's private (non-municipal) and they need to stay away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826213</id>
	<title>The US regulators had other concerns . . .</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1256152140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did the US regulators have similar concerns?  If not, why not?</p></div><p>. . . like GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Savings &amp; Loans . . . etc.  All looking for government bailouts.
</p><p>Oracle's Ellison was willing to bankroll the rescue of Sun with his own money.
</p><p>With so many other headaches on their plate, the government was probably just happy to see a solution for Sun that didn't require gobs of taxpayer money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns ?
If not , why not ? .
. .
like GM , Chrysler , Wall Street , Savings &amp; Loans .
. .
etc. All looking for government bailouts .
Oracle 's Ellison was willing to bankroll the rescue of Sun with his own money .
With so many other headaches on their plate , the government was probably just happy to see a solution for Sun that did n't require gobs of taxpayer money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns?
If not, why not?.
. .
like GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Savings &amp; Loans .
. .
etc.  All looking for government bailouts.
Oracle's Ellison was willing to bankroll the rescue of Sun with his own money.
With so many other headaches on their plate, the government was probably just happy to see a solution for Sun that didn't require gobs of taxpayer money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827459</id>
	<title>Re:Did the US regulators have the same concerns?</title>
	<author>mr\_death</author>
	<datestamp>1256157420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The EU regulators are dragging their feet -- any idiot can look around and note the significant market share of IBM's DB2 and Microsoft's SQL Server and come to the simple conclusion that competition does exist in the database market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU regulators are dragging their feet -- any idiot can look around and note the significant market share of IBM 's DB2 and Microsoft 's SQL Server and come to the simple conclusion that competition does exist in the database market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU regulators are dragging their feet -- any idiot can look around and note the significant market share of IBM's DB2 and Microsoft's SQL Server and come to the simple conclusion that competition does exist in the database market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825519</id>
	<title>This is goat5ex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Under the GPL. t4e reaper BSD's</htmltext>
<tokenext>Under the GPL .
t4e reaper BSD 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under the GPL.
t4e reaper BSD's</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825457</id>
	<title>Nancy Kroes?</title>
	<author>anomnomnomymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Erm, she is called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie\_Kroes" title="wikipedia.org">Neelie Kroes</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm , she is called Neelie Kroes [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm, she is called Neelie Kroes [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825925</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>MrMarket</author>
	<datestamp>1256151060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not about Solaris. <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/10/mysql-founder-says-oracle-should-let-go-of-mysql.ars" title="arstechnica.com">It's about MySQL</a> [arstechnica.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about Solaris .
It 's about MySQL [ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about Solaris.
It's about MySQL [arstechnica.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826877</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>debrain</author>
	<datestamp>1256154660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, how do you produce "hard evidence that there were no competition problems"? Tell them you looked really hard but couldn't find any counterevidence?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sir-<br>Cite existing studies, or alternatively commission a study by a market research / auditor like PWC or Deloitte of:</p><p>1. the market effects of the merger upon the same types of products and services that are offered by both companies, which study ought to (if the merger is to be approved) indicate that there is a limited impact upon the competition in all of the significant types of products and services where both these companies presently provide products and services in the marketplace; and</p><p>2. the ability for the merged company to exclude the products and services of other companies now that the two have merged, and the likelihood and market effects of that possibility of exclusion; which study ought to (again, if the merger is to be approved) indicate that there is a limited likelihood or impact upon competition because the company can now exclude other companies from its decisions.</p><p>The prior is to recognize and prevent the creation of horizontals (i.e. the single provider of a product or service, e.g. Microsoft-OS's) and verticals (i.e. the single provider of an entire product from start to finish, e.g. Monsanto-food).</p><p>The EU commission wants to know, I suspect, whether this merger will make Oracle the only provider of certain products and services (e.g. databases), or alternatively whether it will make Oracle a single solution provider at the expense of others (i.e. bundling the Oracle database with Solaris operating systems with Sparc servers so as to exclude PostgreSQL, Linux and Intel). In the prior case there are obviously other databases, PostgreSQL, etc., and in the latter there are clear reasons why the merger wouldn't hurt the OS or server market (namely there is vibrant competition in both with Solaris). That's just my opinion, though - I don't know the details.</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , how do you produce " hard evidence that there were no competition problems " ?
Tell them you looked really hard but could n't find any counterevidence ? Sir-Cite existing studies , or alternatively commission a study by a market research / auditor like PWC or Deloitte of : 1. the market effects of the merger upon the same types of products and services that are offered by both companies , which study ought to ( if the merger is to be approved ) indicate that there is a limited impact upon the competition in all of the significant types of products and services where both these companies presently provide products and services in the marketplace ; and2 .
the ability for the merged company to exclude the products and services of other companies now that the two have merged , and the likelihood and market effects of that possibility of exclusion ; which study ought to ( again , if the merger is to be approved ) indicate that there is a limited likelihood or impact upon competition because the company can now exclude other companies from its decisions.The prior is to recognize and prevent the creation of horizontals ( i.e .
the single provider of a product or service , e.g .
Microsoft-OS 's ) and verticals ( i.e .
the single provider of an entire product from start to finish , e.g .
Monsanto-food ) .The EU commission wants to know , I suspect , whether this merger will make Oracle the only provider of certain products and services ( e.g .
databases ) , or alternatively whether it will make Oracle a single solution provider at the expense of others ( i.e .
bundling the Oracle database with Solaris operating systems with Sparc servers so as to exclude PostgreSQL , Linux and Intel ) .
In the prior case there are obviously other databases , PostgreSQL , etc. , and in the latter there are clear reasons why the merger would n't hurt the OS or server market ( namely there is vibrant competition in both with Solaris ) .
That 's just my opinion , though - I do n't know the details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, how do you produce "hard evidence that there were no competition problems"?
Tell them you looked really hard but couldn't find any counterevidence?Sir-Cite existing studies, or alternatively commission a study by a market research / auditor like PWC or Deloitte of:1. the market effects of the merger upon the same types of products and services that are offered by both companies, which study ought to (if the merger is to be approved) indicate that there is a limited impact upon the competition in all of the significant types of products and services where both these companies presently provide products and services in the marketplace; and2.
the ability for the merged company to exclude the products and services of other companies now that the two have merged, and the likelihood and market effects of that possibility of exclusion; which study ought to (again, if the merger is to be approved) indicate that there is a limited likelihood or impact upon competition because the company can now exclude other companies from its decisions.The prior is to recognize and prevent the creation of horizontals (i.e.
the single provider of a product or service, e.g.
Microsoft-OS's) and verticals (i.e.
the single provider of an entire product from start to finish, e.g.
Monsanto-food).The EU commission wants to know, I suspect, whether this merger will make Oracle the only provider of certain products and services (e.g.
databases), or alternatively whether it will make Oracle a single solution provider at the expense of others (i.e.
bundling the Oracle database with Solaris operating systems with Sparc servers so as to exclude PostgreSQL, Linux and Intel).
In the prior case there are obviously other databases, PostgreSQL, etc., and in the latter there are clear reasons why the merger wouldn't hurt the OS or server market (namely there is vibrant competition in both with Solaris).
That's just my opinion, though - I don't know the details.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825795</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256150520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Europe gets to define their laws... Oracle and Sun can merge as fast as they want if they do not want to do business in EU</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Europe gets to define their laws... Oracle and Sun can merge as fast as they want if they do not want to do business in EU</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Europe gets to define their laws... Oracle and Sun can merge as fast as they want if they do not want to do business in EU</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825803</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1256150580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I imagine it's because Oracle and Sun both want to continue to do business in Europe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine it 's because Oracle and Sun both want to continue to do business in Europe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine it's because Oracle and Sun both want to continue to do business in Europe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826899</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256154780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.</i></p><p>The fact that Oracle didn't do exactly that is really the strongest indication that Oracle really did have some anticompetitive intent with the acquisition. I can't really see what (nefarious schemes to kill it off would most likely be unsuccessful, as would locking it in, etc), but then I could never really see what Oracle could get out of the acquisition.</p><p><i>They're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun's coffers</i></p><p>Would Sun magically stop bleeding if the merger completed? Maybe if Ellison went 'k thanks oh btw you're all fired' on the first day. But really, in the short term I don't see the schedule of the merger really affecting the scale of the losses. The uncertainty of Suns customers wouldn't be ameliorated by having Oracle finalized as an owner, so pretty much the only thing that'd change would perhaps be the interest rate on some loans.</p><p>It simply isn't the EU that's causing the losses and they'd be there either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.The fact that Oracle did n't do exactly that is really the strongest indication that Oracle really did have some anticompetitive intent with the acquisition .
I ca n't really see what ( nefarious schemes to kill it off would most likely be unsuccessful , as would locking it in , etc ) , but then I could never really see what Oracle could get out of the acquisition.They 're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun 's coffersWould Sun magically stop bleeding if the merger completed ?
Maybe if Ellison went 'k thanks oh btw you 're all fired ' on the first day .
But really , in the short term I do n't see the schedule of the merger really affecting the scale of the losses .
The uncertainty of Suns customers would n't be ameliorated by having Oracle finalized as an owner , so pretty much the only thing that 'd change would perhaps be the interest rate on some loans.It simply is n't the EU that 's causing the losses and they 'd be there either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.The fact that Oracle didn't do exactly that is really the strongest indication that Oracle really did have some anticompetitive intent with the acquisition.
I can't really see what (nefarious schemes to kill it off would most likely be unsuccessful, as would locking it in, etc), but then I could never really see what Oracle could get out of the acquisition.They're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun's coffersWould Sun magically stop bleeding if the merger completed?
Maybe if Ellison went 'k thanks oh btw you're all fired' on the first day.
But really, in the short term I don't see the schedule of the merger really affecting the scale of the losses.
The uncertainty of Suns customers wouldn't be ameliorated by having Oracle finalized as an owner, so pretty much the only thing that'd change would perhaps be the interest rate on some loans.It simply isn't the EU that's causing the losses and they'd be there either way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826809</id>
	<title>Re:Did the US regulators have the same concerns?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256154420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Did the US regulators have similar concerns? If not, why not?</i></p><p>Because apparently, our government is beholden to business and business only and is corrupt as hell as well, and Europe's governments aren't?</p><p><i>To me it seems a bit "convenient" that, in an economy where many jobs have to be lost anyhow (and as a merger is occurring, which may also naturally lead to job losses) people are blaming job losses solely on the regulators doing their jobs and not on sharp practice, opportunism or plain lack of co-operation from large multinationals operating in a cutthroat market.</i></p><p>Amen to that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns ?
If not , why not ? Because apparently , our government is beholden to business and business only and is corrupt as hell as well , and Europe 's governments are n't ? To me it seems a bit " convenient " that , in an economy where many jobs have to be lost anyhow ( and as a merger is occurring , which may also naturally lead to job losses ) people are blaming job losses solely on the regulators doing their jobs and not on sharp practice , opportunism or plain lack of co-operation from large multinationals operating in a cutthroat market.Amen to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns?
If not, why not?Because apparently, our government is beholden to business and business only and is corrupt as hell as well, and Europe's governments aren't?To me it seems a bit "convenient" that, in an economy where many jobs have to be lost anyhow (and as a merger is occurring, which may also naturally lead to job losses) people are blaming job losses solely on the regulators doing their jobs and not on sharp practice, opportunism or plain lack of co-operation from large multinationals operating in a cutthroat market.Amen to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831183</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1256137380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't expect Microsoft to complain to the EC about a non-credible risk to a product that MS competes with...
</p><p>After the fact, one can see why MS wanted the EC and Ms. Kroes to be distracted from enforcing their rulings against MS. Beforehand, though, one wouldn't really predict that MS would astroturf the EC over MySQL, of all things!

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't expect Microsoft to complain to the EC about a non-credible risk to a product that MS competes with.. . After the fact , one can see why MS wanted the EC and Ms. Kroes to be distracted from enforcing their rulings against MS. Beforehand , though , one would n't really predict that MS would astroturf the EC over MySQL , of all things !
--dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't expect Microsoft to complain to the EC about a non-credible risk to a product that MS competes with...
After the fact, one can see why MS wanted the EC and Ms. Kroes to be distracted from enforcing their rulings against MS. Beforehand, though, one wouldn't really predict that MS would astroturf the EC over MySQL, of all things!
--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830557</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1256131020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that the longer the decision is delayed the longer Sun's EU employees get to keep their jobs doing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... whatever it is they do.</p></div><p>Going to the movies. Going to the gym. Watching soaps. Surfing the web. Watching Hulu. Work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the longer the decision is delayed the longer Sun 's EU employees get to keep their jobs doing .... whatever it is they do.Going to the movies .
Going to the gym .
Watching soaps .
Surfing the web .
Watching Hulu .
Work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the longer the decision is delayed the longer Sun's EU employees get to keep their jobs doing .... whatever it is they do.Going to the movies.
Going to the gym.
Watching soaps.
Surfing the web.
Watching Hulu.
Work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825387</id>
	<title>mysql?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So all the fuss is over mysql? which is free?  How can there be a monoply on something free</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So all the fuss is over mysql ?
which is free ?
How can there be a monoply on something free</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So all the fuss is over mysql?
which is free?
How can there be a monoply on something free</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29860465</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256384940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU is not holding up Sun.<br>Sun is holding up Sun.</p><p>Comply with the EU or do your business elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU is not holding up Sun.Sun is holding up Sun.Comply with the EU or do your business elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU is not holding up Sun.Sun is holding up Sun.Comply with the EU or do your business elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707</id>
	<title>Regulatory agencies run amok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256150160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Does it do the public any good, if the regulatory agency  kills the competitor  being acquired, by delaying a decision?
</p><p>
By the time the acquisition is approved or rejected, Sun will be basically dead, and barely have any role as the competitor, anyways.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it do the public any good , if the regulatory agency kills the competitor being acquired , by delaying a decision ?
By the time the acquisition is approved or rejected , Sun will be basically dead , and barely have any role as the competitor , anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Does it do the public any good, if the regulatory agency  kills the competitor  being acquired, by delaying a decision?
By the time the acquisition is approved or rejected, Sun will be basically dead, and barely have any role as the competitor, anyways.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831005</id>
	<title>Re:Ellison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256134920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since IBM sells/owns DB2, I bet they are willing to "help" in these situations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since IBM sells/owns DB2 , I bet they are willing to " help " in these situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since IBM sells/owns DB2, I bet they are willing to "help" in these situations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489</id>
	<title>I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really get this.  If you Oracle on Solaris is a good solution for you today, will it become a bad solution if the merger isn't approved?</p><p>Also, how do you produce "hard evidence that there were no competition problems"?  Tell them you looked really hard but couldn't find any counterevidence?</p><p>I'm ambivalent about Sun and am definitely not an Oracle fan, but I don't really see the problems here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really get this .
If you Oracle on Solaris is a good solution for you today , will it become a bad solution if the merger is n't approved ? Also , how do you produce " hard evidence that there were no competition problems " ?
Tell them you looked really hard but could n't find any counterevidence ? I 'm ambivalent about Sun and am definitely not an Oracle fan , but I do n't really see the problems here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really get this.
If you Oracle on Solaris is a good solution for you today, will it become a bad solution if the merger isn't approved?Also, how do you produce "hard evidence that there were no competition problems"?
Tell them you looked really hard but couldn't find any counterevidence?I'm ambivalent about Sun and am definitely not an Oracle fan, but I don't really see the problems here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826259</id>
	<title>Re:Did the US regulators have the same concerns?</title>
	<author>KlaasVaak</author>
	<datestamp>1256152320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did the US regulators have similar concerns?  If not, why not?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>Because they have a different philosophy than the EU. The EU has been the leading anti-trust regulator in the world for a long time now simply because they believe it's in societies best interest to force companies to compete whereas the US believes more in the innovative power of unregulated companies and thus have a more laissez-faire attitude.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns ?
If not , why not ?
.Because they have a different philosophy than the EU .
The EU has been the leading anti-trust regulator in the world for a long time now simply because they believe it 's in societies best interest to force companies to compete whereas the US believes more in the innovative power of unregulated companies and thus have a more laissez-faire attitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns?
If not, why not?
.Because they have a different philosophy than the EU.
The EU has been the leading anti-trust regulator in the world for a long time now simply because they believe it's in societies best interest to force companies to compete whereas the US believes more in the innovative power of unregulated companies and thus have a more laissez-faire attitude.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</id>
	<title>MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taking</title>
	<author>etymxris</author>
	<datestamp>1256149800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place. IIRC, most of the original people behind it have left and started their own companies around mysql open source forks, or gone to other projects. The supposed "ownership" Oracle will have seems mostly worthless. If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.</p><p>That said, I have little sympathy for the EU here. They're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun's coffers due to the delays, then turning around and saying that the burden is on Oracle to prove it's innocence. If the EU is going to be so disruptive to businesses, they need to act quickly and with their own resources. I'm no fan of corporations, but the EU looks to be clearly in the wrong here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place .
IIRC , most of the original people behind it have left and started their own companies around mysql open source forks , or gone to other projects .
The supposed " ownership " Oracle will have seems mostly worthless .
If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.That said , I have little sympathy for the EU here .
They 're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun 's coffers due to the delays , then turning around and saying that the burden is on Oracle to prove it 's innocence .
If the EU is going to be so disruptive to businesses , they need to act quickly and with their own resources .
I 'm no fan of corporations , but the EU looks to be clearly in the wrong here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place.
IIRC, most of the original people behind it have left and started their own companies around mysql open source forks, or gone to other projects.
The supposed "ownership" Oracle will have seems mostly worthless.
If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.That said, I have little sympathy for the EU here.
They're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun's coffers due to the delays, then turning around and saying that the burden is on Oracle to prove it's innocence.
If the EU is going to be so disruptive to businesses, they need to act quickly and with their own resources.
I'm no fan of corporations, but the EU looks to be clearly in the wrong here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825479</id>
	<title>EU is to blame</title>
	<author>toxygen01</author>
	<datestamp>1256149380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck EU.
Dragging the deal because of OSS product.
Stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck EU .
Dragging the deal because of OSS product .
Stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck EU.
Dragging the deal because of OSS product.
Stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828371</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud Computing is Evil!!1!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256117880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It just goes to show us the adaptability of Linux.  With any other OS they would be locked in but with Linux they can adapt to the cloud with the freedom it gives them</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It just goes to show us the adaptability of Linux .
With any other OS they would be locked in but with Linux they can adapt to the cloud with the freedom it gives them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just goes to show us the adaptability of Linux.
With any other OS they would be locked in but with Linux they can adapt to the cloud with the freedom it gives them</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827935</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256116200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should leave, but not in the way you imply.  They should pull out all manufacturing, development, etc.. sites in any EU country.  Shut them down.  Do whatever they need to placate the EU bureaucrats, but pull everything they can except maybe sales offices out of that shithole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should leave , but not in the way you imply .
They should pull out all manufacturing , development , etc.. sites in any EU country .
Shut them down .
Do whatever they need to placate the EU bureaucrats , but pull everything they can except maybe sales offices out of that shithole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should leave, but not in the way you imply.
They should pull out all manufacturing, development, etc.. sites in any EU country.
Shut them down.
Do whatever they need to placate the EU bureaucrats, but pull everything they can except maybe sales offices out of that shithole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826681</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1256153880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MySQL is just a front end to a back end storage system. Perhaps the goal is to start peddling a commercial MySQL installation, compatible with current MySQL installations, but has an Oracle DB backend for more enterprisey features!</htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL is just a front end to a back end storage system .
Perhaps the goal is to start peddling a commercial MySQL installation , compatible with current MySQL installations , but has an Oracle DB backend for more enterprisey features !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL is just a front end to a back end storage system.
Perhaps the goal is to start peddling a commercial MySQL installation, compatible with current MySQL installations, but has an Oracle DB backend for more enterprisey features!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827465</id>
	<title>No, they're not, they're global</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256157420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a very, very stupid person. Do you even know how much of Oracle and Sun's revenue comes from Europe? Or how many thousands of people work for them in Europe?!</p><p>They're VERY happy to make a lot of their money in Europe, and if they want to continue they have to follow local laws!</p><p>The same applies to large European companies doing business in the US! Recent examples include the Nokia's purchase of Nortel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a very , very stupid person .
Do you even know how much of Oracle and Sun 's revenue comes from Europe ?
Or how many thousands of people work for them in Europe ?
! They 're VERY happy to make a lot of their money in Europe , and if they want to continue they have to follow local laws ! The same applies to large European companies doing business in the US !
Recent examples include the Nokia 's purchase of Nortel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a very, very stupid person.
Do you even know how much of Oracle and Sun's revenue comes from Europe?
Or how many thousands of people work for them in Europe?
!They're VERY happy to make a lot of their money in Europe, and if they want to continue they have to follow local laws!The same applies to large European companies doing business in the US!
Recent examples include the Nokia's purchase of Nortel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828175</id>
	<title>Re:Nancy Kroes?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256117160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Erm, she is called Neelie Kroes.</i></p><p>Nancy is Neelie's hotter evil twin sister.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm , she is called Neelie Kroes.Nancy is Neelie 's hotter evil twin sister .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm, she is called Neelie Kroes.Nancy is Neelie's hotter evil twin sister.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827433</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256157240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More to the point, provide a migration path.  Once you've got that Oracle license, why not migrate all of your MySQL apps over to using it?  Oh, they all use weird MySQL extensions?  Never mind, you just need the new MySQL personality for Oracle which emulates all of MySQL's 'features' (even the data loss!) and lets you consolidate everything onto a single Oracle appliance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , provide a migration path .
Once you 've got that Oracle license , why not migrate all of your MySQL apps over to using it ?
Oh , they all use weird MySQL extensions ?
Never mind , you just need the new MySQL personality for Oracle which emulates all of MySQL 's 'features ' ( even the data loss !
) and lets you consolidate everything onto a single Oracle appliance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, provide a migration path.
Once you've got that Oracle license, why not migrate all of your MySQL apps over to using it?
Oh, they all use weird MySQL extensions?
Never mind, you just need the new MySQL personality for Oracle which emulates all of MySQL's 'features' (even the data loss!
) and lets you consolidate everything onto a single Oracle appliance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827293</id>
	<title>wait a minute...</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1256156520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There *are* US regulators??</htmltext>
<tokenext>There * are * US regulators ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There *are* US regulators?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826807</id>
	<title>Re:Since it is EU that is dragging</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1256154420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read TFA more carefully! What Sun ACTUALLY has said is that the cuts are already part of a 1 year plan. Their complaint is that by holding up the deal, the EU is delaying FURTHER CUTS that they can't make until they are sure there will be Oracle personnel to fill those roles.</p><p>That is, they really wish the EU would hurry up and OK the deal so they can fire more people faster.</p><p>Other than that, Sun's problems are related to the delays in the deal only by coincidence. </p><p>The EU has listed specific concerns and is perfectly happy to move the process forward as soon as Oracle addresses them. It has not done so. Yesterday, right here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. we read one suggestion (spin off MySQL) that would certainly take care of it.</p><p>As for U.S. regulators, it's no surprise they've already OKed it. They'll crack the sound barrier getting the rubber stamp out if your market cap is big enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read TFA more carefully !
What Sun ACTUALLY has said is that the cuts are already part of a 1 year plan .
Their complaint is that by holding up the deal , the EU is delaying FURTHER CUTS that they ca n't make until they are sure there will be Oracle personnel to fill those roles.That is , they really wish the EU would hurry up and OK the deal so they can fire more people faster.Other than that , Sun 's problems are related to the delays in the deal only by coincidence .
The EU has listed specific concerns and is perfectly happy to move the process forward as soon as Oracle addresses them .
It has not done so .
Yesterday , right here on / .
we read one suggestion ( spin off MySQL ) that would certainly take care of it.As for U.S. regulators , it 's no surprise they 've already OKed it .
They 'll crack the sound barrier getting the rubber stamp out if your market cap is big enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read TFA more carefully!
What Sun ACTUALLY has said is that the cuts are already part of a 1 year plan.
Their complaint is that by holding up the deal, the EU is delaying FURTHER CUTS that they can't make until they are sure there will be Oracle personnel to fill those roles.That is, they really wish the EU would hurry up and OK the deal so they can fire more people faster.Other than that, Sun's problems are related to the delays in the deal only by coincidence.
The EU has listed specific concerns and is perfectly happy to move the process forward as soon as Oracle addresses them.
It has not done so.
Yesterday, right here on /.
we read one suggestion (spin off MySQL) that would certainly take care of it.As for U.S. regulators, it's no surprise they've already OKed it.
They'll crack the sound barrier getting the rubber stamp out if your market cap is big enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825975</id>
	<title>Re:Good news for Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256151240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple will be able to cherry pick the top engineers from Sun and continue its relentless assault on every other version of Unix (and suck unix-alikes like Linux).  GO APPLE!</p></div><p>Go zealots! Save that economy!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple will be able to cherry pick the top engineers from Sun and continue its relentless assault on every other version of Unix ( and suck unix-alikes like Linux ) .
GO APPLE ! Go zealots !
Save that economy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple will be able to cherry pick the top engineers from Sun and continue its relentless assault on every other version of Unix (and suck unix-alikes like Linux).
GO APPLE!Go zealots!
Save that economy!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825385</id>
	<title>Since it is EU that is dragging</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1256149080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hopefully, the bulk will come from there. My guess is that doing so would speed up the decision to an over night one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully , the bulk will come from there .
My guess is that doing so would speed up the decision to an over night one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully, the bulk will come from there.
My guess is that doing so would speed up the decision to an over night one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826355</id>
	<title>Ellison</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1256152620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Larry doesn't mind; the EU delay gives him a scapegoat for the layoffs.</p><p>Those of you fixated on MySQL: Sun sells hardware, software licenses and contract support to enterprises that use SQL Server, DB2, SAP and other direct competitors of Oracle, meaning the some DB2 users (for instance) will find themselves relying on Oracle for support of certified DB2 platforms...  MySQL may be the least of whatever "competition problems" the EU has in mind</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Larry does n't mind ; the EU delay gives him a scapegoat for the layoffs.Those of you fixated on MySQL : Sun sells hardware , software licenses and contract support to enterprises that use SQL Server , DB2 , SAP and other direct competitors of Oracle , meaning the some DB2 users ( for instance ) will find themselves relying on Oracle for support of certified DB2 platforms... MySQL may be the least of whatever " competition problems " the EU has in mind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Larry doesn't mind; the EU delay gives him a scapegoat for the layoffs.Those of you fixated on MySQL: Sun sells hardware, software licenses and contract support to enterprises that use SQL Server, DB2, SAP and other direct competitors of Oracle, meaning the some DB2 users (for instance) will find themselves relying on Oracle for support of certified DB2 platforms...  MySQL may be the least of whatever "competition problems" the EU has in mind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828899</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1256120460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place."</p><p>Perhaps Oracle thinks they can come up with another private antitrust case against MS that's worth more than a billion. Wasn't that why AOL bought  Netscape?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place .
" Perhaps Oracle thinks they can come up with another private antitrust case against MS that 's worth more than a billion .
Was n't that why AOL bought Netscape ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place.
"Perhaps Oracle thinks they can come up with another private antitrust case against MS that's worth more than a billion.
Wasn't that why AOL bought  Netscape?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826887</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256154660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why does Europe get to hold up a purchase of an American company by an American company? Or is that not the case?</i></p><p>Why? Because the US dollar is so worthless, and your country is run so badly, that the Eurocrats used their strong currency to purchase the USA in a leveraged buy-out financed by the Chinese.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/ducks</p><p>Like other badly-run organizations, the USA is worth more as its constituent parts than as an integrated whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Europe get to hold up a purchase of an American company by an American company ?
Or is that not the case ? Why ?
Because the US dollar is so worthless , and your country is run so badly , that the Eurocrats used their strong currency to purchase the USA in a leveraged buy-out financed by the Chinese .
/ducksLike other badly-run organizations , the USA is worth more as its constituent parts than as an integrated whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Europe get to hold up a purchase of an American company by an American company?
Or is that not the case?Why?
Because the US dollar is so worthless, and your country is run so badly, that the Eurocrats used their strong currency to purchase the USA in a leveraged buy-out financed by the Chinese.
/ducksLike other badly-run organizations, the USA is worth more as its constituent parts than as an integrated whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829825</id>
	<title>Ain't regulation grand?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256125680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Makes perfectly good sense to destroy a company's profitability and the company with it in order to make sure that provides much needed competition in the market place.  Bureaucrats are power hungry idiots regardless of what side of the ocean you're on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes perfectly good sense to destroy a company 's profitability and the company with it in order to make sure that provides much needed competition in the market place .
Bureaucrats are power hungry idiots regardless of what side of the ocean you 're on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes perfectly good sense to destroy a company's profitability and the company with it in order to make sure that provides much needed competition in the market place.
Bureaucrats are power hungry idiots regardless of what side of the ocean you're on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825487</id>
	<title>FTFY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>EU Competition Comissioner <b>Neelie</b> Kroes</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>EU Competition Comissioner Neelie Kroes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EU Competition Comissioner Neelie Kroes
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826093</id>
	<title>Re:EU is to blame</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1256151660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fuck EU.<br>Dragging the deal because of OSS product.<br>Stupid.</p></div><p>Haha, yeah! Fuck EU! Fuck America! Fuck the world! Let's be a bunch of angry teenagers and punch walls! I mean who in their right mind would cast doubt on the merger of the companies owning the two, by far, largest commercial OSS database products! And there is no chance in hell Sun/Oracle is using this as an excuse to lay off some unprofitable workforce! Fuck hormonal inbalance and puberty!<br>
&nbsp; <br>Kids...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck EU.Dragging the deal because of OSS product.Stupid.Haha , yeah !
Fuck EU !
Fuck America !
Fuck the world !
Let 's be a bunch of angry teenagers and punch walls !
I mean who in their right mind would cast doubt on the merger of the companies owning the two , by far , largest commercial OSS database products !
And there is no chance in hell Sun/Oracle is using this as an excuse to lay off some unprofitable workforce !
Fuck hormonal inbalance and puberty !
  Kids.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck EU.Dragging the deal because of OSS product.Stupid.Haha, yeah!
Fuck EU!
Fuck America!
Fuck the world!
Let's be a bunch of angry teenagers and punch walls!
I mean who in their right mind would cast doubt on the merger of the companies owning the two, by far, largest commercial OSS database products!
And there is no chance in hell Sun/Oracle is using this as an excuse to lay off some unprofitable workforce!
Fuck hormonal inbalance and puberty!
  Kids...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825427</id>
	<title>just a ploy....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for oracle to drag the deal out and crush sun by letting it bleed money until worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for oracle to drag the deal out and crush sun by letting it bleed money until worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for oracle to drag the deal out and crush sun by letting it bleed money until worthless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828393</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1256117940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they <i>don't</i> do all that much. If you've looked at the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for 2009 2Q, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124999375643622537.html" title="wsj.com">worker productivity increased 6.4\%</a> [wsj.com] (annualized rate):<blockquote><div><p>Over the long run, productivity is key to improved living standards by spurring rising output, employment, incomes and asset values. While the jump in productivity could suggest that the economy is poised for a strong recovery once it reaches bottom, that could be offset by the negative impact on consumer demand from job losses.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
For the economy to recover, those people will end up having to find something else (productive) to do. This is not a trivial undertaking. But, in the long run, it's better then them idling away on more TPS reports.</p><p>
(Also: IBM employees do a bunch of "solutions" custom-software stuff through IBM Global Services. Microsoft uses developers developers developers to brute-force things instead of doing real project management - or at least they did for Vista. The rest? your guess is as good as mine.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they do n't do all that much .
If you 've looked at the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for 2009 2Q , worker productivity increased 6.4 \ % [ wsj.com ] ( annualized rate ) : Over the long run , productivity is key to improved living standards by spurring rising output , employment , incomes and asset values .
While the jump in productivity could suggest that the economy is poised for a strong recovery once it reaches bottom , that could be offset by the negative impact on consumer demand from job losses .
For the economy to recover , those people will end up having to find something else ( productive ) to do .
This is not a trivial undertaking .
But , in the long run , it 's better then them idling away on more TPS reports .
( Also : IBM employees do a bunch of " solutions " custom-software stuff through IBM Global Services .
Microsoft uses developers developers developers to brute-force things instead of doing real project management - or at least they did for Vista .
The rest ?
your guess is as good as mine .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they don't do all that much.
If you've looked at the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for 2009 2Q, worker productivity increased 6.4\% [wsj.com] (annualized rate):Over the long run, productivity is key to improved living standards by spurring rising output, employment, incomes and asset values.
While the jump in productivity could suggest that the economy is poised for a strong recovery once it reaches bottom, that could be offset by the negative impact on consumer demand from job losses.
For the economy to recover, those people will end up having to find something else (productive) to do.
This is not a trivial undertaking.
But, in the long run, it's better then them idling away on more TPS reports.
(Also: IBM employees do a bunch of "solutions" custom-software stuff through IBM Global Services.
Microsoft uses developers developers developers to brute-force things instead of doing real project management - or at least they did for Vista.
The rest?
your guess is as good as mine.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831755</id>
	<title>Re:Did the US regulators have the same concerns?</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1256144460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MySQL isn't leading, that's the thing.  Oracle isn't just making things up.  In the "real world", MySQL doesn't even hit most companies radar.  In all of my customers, not a single one runs MySQL for a production database.  It's Oracle, MSSQL, or DB2.  MySQL's financial numbers back up the fact their market penetration in the paying enterprise is NOTHING.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL is n't leading , that 's the thing .
Oracle is n't just making things up .
In the " real world " , MySQL does n't even hit most companies radar .
In all of my customers , not a single one runs MySQL for a production database .
It 's Oracle , MSSQL , or DB2 .
MySQL 's financial numbers back up the fact their market penetration in the paying enterprise is NOTHING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL isn't leading, that's the thing.
Oracle isn't just making things up.
In the "real world", MySQL doesn't even hit most companies radar.
In all of my customers, not a single one runs MySQL for a production database.
It's Oracle, MSSQL, or DB2.
MySQL's financial numbers back up the fact their market penetration in the paying enterprise is NOTHING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29833707</id>
	<title>Poor Sun, poor Oracle, poor Elliot</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1256216400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe if the leading commercial DB company did not indirectly buy the leading OS DB company, this whole thing would have been done with ages ago?</p><p>It's not as if the EU hadn't jumped up and down yelling "Sell MySQL" all the time. If Elliot wants to play hardball.. Well, the EU can play it better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if the leading commercial DB company did not indirectly buy the leading OS DB company , this whole thing would have been done with ages ago ? It 's not as if the EU had n't jumped up and down yelling " Sell MySQL " all the time .
If Elliot wants to play hardball.. Well , the EU can play it better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if the leading commercial DB company did not indirectly buy the leading OS DB company, this whole thing would have been done with ages ago?It's not as if the EU hadn't jumped up and down yelling "Sell MySQL" all the time.
If Elliot wants to play hardball.. Well, the EU can play it better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29842283</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256224680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What do these companies do with all of these employees?  They had 30K and can cut 3K at the drop of a hat?  Adobe has about 7K, Google 20K, Apple 32K, Microsoft 91K and IBM nearly 400K!!  What do all of these people do?</p><p>By way of comparison, Harvard has 13K and GM had about 245K.  How many TPS reports do 10K employees generate?</p></div><p>I too would like that question answered.  How do you let go of 10\% of your workforce and maintain; Product Updates, Customer Service, Global Presence.</p><p>Unfortunately, I'm not really sure using examples like Harvard and GM are real world.  When Harvard starts manufacturing a product at 20+ facilities  let me know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do these companies do with all of these employees ?
They had 30K and can cut 3K at the drop of a hat ?
Adobe has about 7K , Google 20K , Apple 32K , Microsoft 91K and IBM nearly 400K ! !
What do all of these people do ? By way of comparison , Harvard has 13K and GM had about 245K .
How many TPS reports do 10K employees generate ? I too would like that question answered .
How do you let go of 10 \ % of your workforce and maintain ; Product Updates , Customer Service , Global Presence.Unfortunately , I 'm not really sure using examples like Harvard and GM are real world .
When Harvard starts manufacturing a product at 20 + facilities let me know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do these companies do with all of these employees?
They had 30K and can cut 3K at the drop of a hat?
Adobe has about 7K, Google 20K, Apple 32K, Microsoft 91K and IBM nearly 400K!!
What do all of these people do?By way of comparison, Harvard has 13K and GM had about 245K.
How many TPS reports do 10K employees generate?I too would like that question answered.
How do you let go of 10\% of your workforce and maintain; Product Updates, Customer Service, Global Presence.Unfortunately, I'm not really sure using examples like Harvard and GM are real world.
When Harvard starts manufacturing a product at 20+ facilities  let me know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826133</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256151780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is the EU job to keep down all those awful American Based Companies. If these companies had a strong European presence do you think they would be as hard on them.  Probably not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the EU job to keep down all those awful American Based Companies .
If these companies had a strong European presence do you think they would be as hard on them .
Probably not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the EU job to keep down all those awful American Based Companies.
If these companies had a strong European presence do you think they would be as hard on them.
Probably not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827287</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Tragedy4u</author>
	<datestamp>1256156520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Become a contract consultant for their former employer for nearly double what they made as a salaried employee.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Become a contract consultant for their former employer for nearly double what they made as a salaried employee .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Become a contract consultant for their former employer for nearly double what they made as a salaried employee.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825833</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256150640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oracle and Sun obviously engaged in some sort of discussions where they agreed to buy Sun if Sun would by MySQL. That way, Oracle could acquire MySQL with less of a concern, because while some people will (and have) focused on the potential unfair business practices the acquisition would pose, Oracle can say "sure, we're interested in MySQL, but we're more interested in all this OTHER stuff which is why we really bought Sun".</p><p>In other words, Sun execs want to cash out and get rich at the expensive of what was once a great company. Oracle wants MySQL. Oracle backroom deals with Sun to purchase MySQL, deflecting the incredible concern that there would be with a direct MySQL sale to Oracle. Then Oracle promises to gobble them all up six months later. Jonothan shakes on it and heads back home in his chauffeured limousine to issue an edict to the HR department to layoff ten thousand employees so he can keep things afloat while he rolls in his Oracle cash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle and Sun obviously engaged in some sort of discussions where they agreed to buy Sun if Sun would by MySQL .
That way , Oracle could acquire MySQL with less of a concern , because while some people will ( and have ) focused on the potential unfair business practices the acquisition would pose , Oracle can say " sure , we 're interested in MySQL , but we 're more interested in all this OTHER stuff which is why we really bought Sun " .In other words , Sun execs want to cash out and get rich at the expensive of what was once a great company .
Oracle wants MySQL .
Oracle backroom deals with Sun to purchase MySQL , deflecting the incredible concern that there would be with a direct MySQL sale to Oracle .
Then Oracle promises to gobble them all up six months later .
Jonothan shakes on it and heads back home in his chauffeured limousine to issue an edict to the HR department to layoff ten thousand employees so he can keep things afloat while he rolls in his Oracle cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle and Sun obviously engaged in some sort of discussions where they agreed to buy Sun if Sun would by MySQL.
That way, Oracle could acquire MySQL with less of a concern, because while some people will (and have) focused on the potential unfair business practices the acquisition would pose, Oracle can say "sure, we're interested in MySQL, but we're more interested in all this OTHER stuff which is why we really bought Sun".In other words, Sun execs want to cash out and get rich at the expensive of what was once a great company.
Oracle wants MySQL.
Oracle backroom deals with Sun to purchase MySQL, deflecting the incredible concern that there would be with a direct MySQL sale to Oracle.
Then Oracle promises to gobble them all up six months later.
Jonothan shakes on it and heads back home in his chauffeured limousine to issue an edict to the HR department to layoff ten thousand employees so he can keep things afloat while he rolls in his Oracle cash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825393</id>
	<title>Good news for Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple will be able to cherry pick the top engineers from Sun and continue its relentless assault on every other version of Unix (and suck unix-alikes like Linux).  GO APPLE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple will be able to cherry pick the top engineers from Sun and continue its relentless assault on every other version of Unix ( and suck unix-alikes like Linux ) .
GO APPLE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple will be able to cherry pick the top engineers from Sun and continue its relentless assault on every other version of Unix (and suck unix-alikes like Linux).
GO APPLE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827045</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256155500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see how the EU dragging its feet one way or the other is helping anybody but Sun's competitors. I suppose the theory is "competition" will be promoted by poisoning a weak competitor. There's no "yes/no/x stipulations", there's just feet dragging.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how the EU dragging its feet one way or the other is helping anybody but Sun 's competitors .
I suppose the theory is " competition " will be promoted by poisoning a weak competitor .
There 's no " yes/no/x stipulations " , there 's just feet dragging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how the EU dragging its feet one way or the other is helping anybody but Sun's competitors.
I suppose the theory is "competition" will be promoted by poisoning a weak competitor.
There's no "yes/no/x stipulations", there's just feet dragging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825769</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256150400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wildly speculating here since I'm not a monopoly expert (or IANAME as you probably call it), but my best guess is that both companies may be selling some of their products on European markets (yep, they use markets for business stuff, too). Therefore they are both what I'd like to call "multinational companies". And since the EU is comprised of multiple nations, they probably have some prior art or somesuch in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wildly speculating here since I 'm not a monopoly expert ( or IANAME as you probably call it ) , but my best guess is that both companies may be selling some of their products on European markets ( yep , they use markets for business stuff , too ) .
Therefore they are both what I 'd like to call " multinational companies " .
And since the EU is comprised of multiple nations , they probably have some prior art or somesuch in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wildly speculating here since I'm not a monopoly expert (or IANAME as you probably call it), but my best guess is that both companies may be selling some of their products on European markets (yep, they use markets for business stuff, too).
Therefore they are both what I'd like to call "multinational companies".
And since the EU is comprised of multiple nations, they probably have some prior art or somesuch in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825731</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256150280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't like the laws of the land, take your business elsewhere. Sun and Oracle are more than welcome to leave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like the laws of the land , take your business elsewhere .
Sun and Oracle are more than welcome to leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like the laws of the land, take your business elsewhere.
Sun and Oracle are more than welcome to leave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827593</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>pnuema</author>
	<datestamp>1256157900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't suppose it has anything to do with Oracle owning Peoplesoft, which competes directly with SAP (a European company)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't suppose it has anything to do with Oracle owning Peoplesoft , which competes directly with SAP ( a European company ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't suppose it has anything to do with Oracle owning Peoplesoft, which competes directly with SAP (a European company)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826107</id>
	<title>The real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256151660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a woman making technology decisions......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a woman making technology decisions..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a woman making technology decisions......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826307</id>
	<title>Re:Did the US regulators have the same concerns?</title>
	<author>RogerWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1256152440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did the US regulators have similar concerns?  If not, why not?  If they're genuine concerns - they sound like it - why is it just the EU that's following them up?</p><p>There generally seems to be a certain amount of frustration that the EU is holding up companies of US origin, although actually they have significant financial impact (and offices and presumably regional headquarters and subsidiary companies) in Europe too.  Presumably Oracle and Sun *themselves* could have predicted these hurdles if they'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading (albeit in different markets!) database companies would be a worry for the regulators?</p></div><p>I was wondering this too. What I've seen so far of Neelie Kroes in the last couple of years, she's been very fair, and quick to act if she could. It's only when companies are dragging their feet and fail to reply to the raised concerns that get raised. And she might have given some big fines to US companies, the biggest and most fines have still been applied against EU companies.</p><p>And given that Oracle is acquiring MySQL with this merger, I think the EU certainly has a point, the only other sizeable players remaining are PosGreSQL and Microsoft. Basically you end up with a market that looks similar to the OS market with Linux and OSX as competitors to Windows, and for the OS market I think Windows has been ruled a (near) monopoly on both sides of the Atlantic. I think the EU is well within its rights if it wants to prevent the situation that the current OS market is in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns ?
If not , why not ?
If they 're genuine concerns - they sound like it - why is it just the EU that 's following them up ? There generally seems to be a certain amount of frustration that the EU is holding up companies of US origin , although actually they have significant financial impact ( and offices and presumably regional headquarters and subsidiary companies ) in Europe too .
Presumably Oracle and Sun * themselves * could have predicted these hurdles if they 'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading ( albeit in different markets !
) database companies would be a worry for the regulators ? I was wondering this too .
What I 've seen so far of Neelie Kroes in the last couple of years , she 's been very fair , and quick to act if she could .
It 's only when companies are dragging their feet and fail to reply to the raised concerns that get raised .
And she might have given some big fines to US companies , the biggest and most fines have still been applied against EU companies.And given that Oracle is acquiring MySQL with this merger , I think the EU certainly has a point , the only other sizeable players remaining are PosGreSQL and Microsoft .
Basically you end up with a market that looks similar to the OS market with Linux and OSX as competitors to Windows , and for the OS market I think Windows has been ruled a ( near ) monopoly on both sides of the Atlantic .
I think the EU is well within its rights if it wants to prevent the situation that the current OS market is in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns?
If not, why not?
If they're genuine concerns - they sound like it - why is it just the EU that's following them up?There generally seems to be a certain amount of frustration that the EU is holding up companies of US origin, although actually they have significant financial impact (and offices and presumably regional headquarters and subsidiary companies) in Europe too.
Presumably Oracle and Sun *themselves* could have predicted these hurdles if they'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading (albeit in different markets!
) database companies would be a worry for the regulators?I was wondering this too.
What I've seen so far of Neelie Kroes in the last couple of years, she's been very fair, and quick to act if she could.
It's only when companies are dragging their feet and fail to reply to the raised concerns that get raised.
And she might have given some big fines to US companies, the biggest and most fines have still been applied against EU companies.And given that Oracle is acquiring MySQL with this merger, I think the EU certainly has a point, the only other sizeable players remaining are PosGreSQL and Microsoft.
Basically you end up with a market that looks similar to the OS market with Linux and OSX as competitors to Windows, and for the OS market I think Windows has been ruled a (near) monopoly on both sides of the Atlantic.
I think the EU is well within its rights if it wants to prevent the situation that the current OS market is in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29843295</id>
	<title>And in the middle of this..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256240820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/java\_for\_netbooks/</p><p>Not sure how any of this would help the situation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/java \ _for \ _netbooks/Not sure how any of this would help the situation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/java\_for\_netbooks/Not sure how any of this would help the situation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827243</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256156340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mysql the company... not mysql the opensource database project... (yes, mysql company puts a lot of code out there, and supports the product in production environments, but does not assert 100\% control over the opensource project...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mysql the company... not mysql the opensource database project... ( yes , mysql company puts a lot of code out there , and supports the product in production environments , but does not assert 100 \ % control over the opensource project.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mysql the company... not mysql the opensource database project... (yes, mysql company puts a lot of code out there, and supports the product in production environments, but does not assert 100\% control over the opensource project...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825511</id>
	<title>The lady's name is Neelie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not Nancy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not Nancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not Nancy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827481</id>
	<title>Re:Regulatory agencies run amok</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1256157540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it does good.</p><p>The <b>entire</b> philosophical underpinning of free market theory rests on certain assumptions. One of them being that neither a single supplier nor a single consumer has a commanding influence over the market. As soon as that happens, everything you learned about price finding, supply-and-demand, market equilibrium and all the other "magic" breaks down.</p><p>These are the people who guard the free market. They may not be perfect, but I'm damn happy we have them. Economics 101 tells you what happens in monopoly or oligopoly markets, and it's certainly <b>not</b> to the advantage of the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it does good.The entire philosophical underpinning of free market theory rests on certain assumptions .
One of them being that neither a single supplier nor a single consumer has a commanding influence over the market .
As soon as that happens , everything you learned about price finding , supply-and-demand , market equilibrium and all the other " magic " breaks down.These are the people who guard the free market .
They may not be perfect , but I 'm damn happy we have them .
Economics 101 tells you what happens in monopoly or oligopoly markets , and it 's certainly not to the advantage of the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it does good.The entire philosophical underpinning of free market theory rests on certain assumptions.
One of them being that neither a single supplier nor a single consumer has a commanding influence over the market.
As soon as that happens, everything you learned about price finding, supply-and-demand, market equilibrium and all the other "magic" breaks down.These are the people who guard the free market.
They may not be perfect, but I'm damn happy we have them.
Economics 101 tells you what happens in monopoly or oligopoly markets, and it's certainly not to the advantage of the public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826553</id>
	<title>Re:Did the US regulators have the same concerns?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256153400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And again, let's just play the blame game. You have to lay off about 10\% of your workforce, which is really not a popular move at all. Would you rather:</p><p>a) Divert attention from your own game of poker and blame the <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/09/22/urnidgns852573C400693880002576390043010A.DTL" title="sfgate.com" rel="nofollow">stubborn, evil regulators</a> [sfgate.com] instead? Due diligence anyone?<br>b) Go into the details of your less-than-ideal-management which made you <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/07/BUUB16TJ8F.DTL#ixzz0Ub2URmTJ" title="sfgate.com" rel="nofollow">need a strong partner in the first place</a> [sfgate.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And again , let 's just play the blame game .
You have to lay off about 10 \ % of your workforce , which is really not a popular move at all .
Would you rather : a ) Divert attention from your own game of poker and blame the stubborn , evil regulators [ sfgate.com ] instead ?
Due diligence anyone ? b ) Go into the details of your less-than-ideal-management which made you need a strong partner in the first place [ sfgate.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And again, let's just play the blame game.
You have to lay off about 10\% of your workforce, which is really not a popular move at all.
Would you rather:a) Divert attention from your own game of poker and blame the stubborn, evil regulators [sfgate.com] instead?
Due diligence anyone?b) Go into the details of your less-than-ideal-management which made you need a strong partner in the first place [sfgate.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29832327</id>
	<title>Sun bought MySQL for one billion</title>
	<author>Asian Freud</author>
	<datestamp>1256152860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What can Oracle do now? No one will spend anywhere close to one billion for MySQL.</p><p>In effect EU regulators are asking Oracle to burn one billion dollar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What can Oracle do now ?
No one will spend anywhere close to one billion for MySQL.In effect EU regulators are asking Oracle to burn one billion dollar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can Oracle do now?
No one will spend anywhere close to one billion for MySQL.In effect EU regulators are asking Oracle to burn one billion dollar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830555</id>
	<title>Apple can't take server share</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1256131020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While OS X Server is real underrated state of art UNIX which can do amazing things, Apple isn't and can't be a "server" competitor unless they allow OS X Server to run on "generic" x86.</p><p>While not widely known, OS X server can be used as a client, you can even play all the games on it even with better performance. So, they can't make "blade only" Apple OS X server. It would mean the end of "OS X working only on Apple hardware". I mean it is not AIX.</p><p>Forget everything, Apple can't compete in "support" department for servers. There is Big Blue there, Dell there, HP there and of course, Sun with decades old agreements and happy customers who expects same kind of service.</p><p>Of course, if you consider the things you can do with distributed computing (Xserve), spotlight (server version), it is sad but industry hates brand hardware without any competition. Java's (especially J2EE) success and mainframes coming back to life is also related to that trend, people choose Java because it will work anywhere, any CPU and even any OS with minor modifications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While OS X Server is real underrated state of art UNIX which can do amazing things , Apple is n't and ca n't be a " server " competitor unless they allow OS X Server to run on " generic " x86.While not widely known , OS X server can be used as a client , you can even play all the games on it even with better performance .
So , they ca n't make " blade only " Apple OS X server .
It would mean the end of " OS X working only on Apple hardware " .
I mean it is not AIX.Forget everything , Apple ca n't compete in " support " department for servers .
There is Big Blue there , Dell there , HP there and of course , Sun with decades old agreements and happy customers who expects same kind of service.Of course , if you consider the things you can do with distributed computing ( Xserve ) , spotlight ( server version ) , it is sad but industry hates brand hardware without any competition .
Java 's ( especially J2EE ) success and mainframes coming back to life is also related to that trend , people choose Java because it will work anywhere , any CPU and even any OS with minor modifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While OS X Server is real underrated state of art UNIX which can do amazing things, Apple isn't and can't be a "server" competitor unless they allow OS X Server to run on "generic" x86.While not widely known, OS X server can be used as a client, you can even play all the games on it even with better performance.
So, they can't make "blade only" Apple OS X server.
It would mean the end of "OS X working only on Apple hardware".
I mean it is not AIX.Forget everything, Apple can't compete in "support" department for servers.
There is Big Blue there, Dell there, HP there and of course, Sun with decades old agreements and happy customers who expects same kind of service.Of course, if you consider the things you can do with distributed computing (Xserve), spotlight (server version), it is sad but industry hates brand hardware without any competition.
Java's (especially J2EE) success and mainframes coming back to life is also related to that trend, people choose Java because it will work anywhere, any CPU and even any OS with minor modifications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827427</id>
	<title>you need to ask?</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1256157180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>why is it just the EU that's following them up?</i>

Because the US govt is just a branch of the corporates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>why is it just the EU that 's following them up ?
Because the US govt is just a branch of the corporates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why is it just the EU that's following them up?
Because the US govt is just a branch of the corporates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829837</id>
	<title>Re:Regulatory agencies run amok</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1256125740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<em>Because they want to own 100\% of the OSS database enterprise market. </em> </p><p>
So where are Oracle buyouts of PostgreSQL-related companies?
</p><p>
In case you were unaware, PostgreSQL, and some other OSS DBs  are closer to OracleDB than MySQL.
</p><p>
And they are a significant proportion of the Enterprise OSS DB market.  MySQL is by no means all the OSS market, it's only a decent sized chunk of it.
</p><p>
The rest is controlled by other SQL-based databases (such as HSQLDB, SQLite, PG, Firebird, SAPDB, Apache DB, Ingres, BlackRay, CSQL )
</p><p>
And the massive number of non-SQL RDBMS used in Enterprises.  CouchDB, MonetDB, BDB, HBase, OpenQM, GNU GDBM, H2, GNOMEDB, GT.M, GladiusDB, C-Store, Hypertable
</p><p>Mnesia, Perst, ZopeDB</p><p>
There is basically 0\% chance of Oracle owning 100\% of the OSS  Enterprise Database market, because there are so many databases needed.
</p><p>
MySQL certainly doesn't work  for all enterprise applications.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they want to own 100 \ % of the OSS database enterprise market .
So where are Oracle buyouts of PostgreSQL-related companies ?
In case you were unaware , PostgreSQL , and some other OSS DBs are closer to OracleDB than MySQL .
And they are a significant proportion of the Enterprise OSS DB market .
MySQL is by no means all the OSS market , it 's only a decent sized chunk of it .
The rest is controlled by other SQL-based databases ( such as HSQLDB , SQLite , PG , Firebird , SAPDB , Apache DB , Ingres , BlackRay , CSQL ) And the massive number of non-SQL RDBMS used in Enterprises .
CouchDB , MonetDB , BDB , HBase , OpenQM , GNU GDBM , H2 , GNOMEDB , GT.M , GladiusDB , C-Store , Hypertable Mnesia , Perst , ZopeDB There is basically 0 \ % chance of Oracle owning 100 \ % of the OSS Enterprise Database market , because there are so many databases needed .
MySQL certainly does n't work for all enterprise applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Because they want to own 100\% of the OSS database enterprise market.
So where are Oracle buyouts of PostgreSQL-related companies?
In case you were unaware, PostgreSQL, and some other OSS DBs  are closer to OracleDB than MySQL.
And they are a significant proportion of the Enterprise OSS DB market.
MySQL is by no means all the OSS market, it's only a decent sized chunk of it.
The rest is controlled by other SQL-based databases (such as HSQLDB, SQLite, PG, Firebird, SAPDB, Apache DB, Ingres, BlackRay, CSQL )

And the massive number of non-SQL RDBMS used in Enterprises.
CouchDB, MonetDB, BDB, HBase, OpenQM, GNU GDBM, H2, GNOMEDB, GT.M, GladiusDB, C-Store, Hypertable
Mnesia, Perst, ZopeDB
There is basically 0\% chance of Oracle owning 100\% of the OSS  Enterprise Database market, because there are so many databases needed.
MySQL certainly doesn't work  for all enterprise applications.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826769</id>
	<title>Regulators...</title>
	<author>Savage-Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1256154240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Presumably Oracle and Sun *themselves* could have predicted these hurdles if they'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading (albeit in different markets!) database companies would be a worry for the regulators?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>........ Would the tech industry really be in a better position if they reduced their scrutiny? Or if they applied it only to certain companies.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...... To me it seems a bit "convenient" that, in an economy where many jobs have to be lost anyhow (and as a merger is occurring, which may also naturally lead to job losses) people are blaming job losses solely on the regulators doing their jobs and not on sharp practice, opportunism or plain lack of co-operation from large multinationals operating in a cutthroat market.</p></div><p>Yup... it brings back memories from the recent past when all kinds of people were whining, pissing and moaning about how evil regulators stood in the way of Wall Street in it's quest to make the world a better and wealthier place with innovative financial products and free market fundamentalist dogma. In the middle of this stirring chorus of people chanting "deregulation" in perfect harmony.... BAM.... alluvasudden we had our selves a global banking crash. Now those same people are asking: "where were the regulators?"  It just goes to show that humans are funny critters with short and selective memories. IMHO Oracle is getting to be every bit as much of a problem due to their size and market dominance as Microsoft is and you could add quite a few other companies to this list of corporations that are getting way too big in various different tech markets (Apple, Google... the list goes on) without hearing any objections from me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably Oracle and Sun * themselves * could have predicted these hurdles if they 'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading ( albeit in different markets !
) database companies would be a worry for the regulators ?
........ Would the tech industry really be in a better position if they reduced their scrutiny ?
Or if they applied it only to certain companies .
...... To me it seems a bit " convenient " that , in an economy where many jobs have to be lost anyhow ( and as a merger is occurring , which may also naturally lead to job losses ) people are blaming job losses solely on the regulators doing their jobs and not on sharp practice , opportunism or plain lack of co-operation from large multinationals operating in a cutthroat market.Yup... it brings back memories from the recent past when all kinds of people were whining , pissing and moaning about how evil regulators stood in the way of Wall Street in it 's quest to make the world a better and wealthier place with innovative financial products and free market fundamentalist dogma .
In the middle of this stirring chorus of people chanting " deregulation " in perfect harmony.... BAM.... alluvasudden we had our selves a global banking crash .
Now those same people are asking : " where were the regulators ?
" It just goes to show that humans are funny critters with short and selective memories .
IMHO Oracle is getting to be every bit as much of a problem due to their size and market dominance as Microsoft is and you could add quite a few other companies to this list of corporations that are getting way too big in various different tech markets ( Apple , Google... the list goes on ) without hearing any objections from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably Oracle and Sun *themselves* could have predicted these hurdles if they'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading (albeit in different markets!
) database companies would be a worry for the regulators?
........ Would the tech industry really be in a better position if they reduced their scrutiny?
Or if they applied it only to certain companies.
...... To me it seems a bit "convenient" that, in an economy where many jobs have to be lost anyhow (and as a merger is occurring, which may also naturally lead to job losses) people are blaming job losses solely on the regulators doing their jobs and not on sharp practice, opportunism or plain lack of co-operation from large multinationals operating in a cutthroat market.Yup... it brings back memories from the recent past when all kinds of people were whining, pissing and moaning about how evil regulators stood in the way of Wall Street in it's quest to make the world a better and wealthier place with innovative financial products and free market fundamentalist dogma.
In the middle of this stirring chorus of people chanting "deregulation" in perfect harmony.... BAM.... alluvasudden we had our selves a global banking crash.
Now those same people are asking: "where were the regulators?
"  It just goes to show that humans are funny critters with short and selective memories.
IMHO Oracle is getting to be every bit as much of a problem due to their size and market dominance as Microsoft is and you could add quite a few other companies to this list of corporations that are getting way too big in various different tech markets (Apple, Google... the list goes on) without hearing any objections from me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855</id>
	<title>Did the US regulators have the same concerns?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256150820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did the US regulators have similar concerns?  If not, why not?  If they're genuine concerns - they sound like it - why is it just the EU that's following them up?</p><p>There generally seems to be a certain amount of frustration that the EU is holding up companies of US origin, although actually they have significant financial impact (and offices and presumably regional headquarters and subsidiary companies) in Europe too.  Presumably Oracle and Sun *themselves* could have predicted these hurdles if they'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading (albeit in different markets!) database companies would be a worry for the regulators?</p><p>Presumably Oracle and Sun would be welcome to merge if they had terminated their entire presence in Europe - they're not proposing doing that and one assumes it's because Europe is a big enough financial interest for them that they believe it's *worth the wait*.  They may not have a choice, in practical terms, but one assumes they have years / decades of making money from their European dealings so it's not like the EU is just a plain dead weight for them.</p><p>This is the same EU that is cracking down on anticompetitive behaviour from MS and Intel, which generally seem to be popular moves with folks here.  Would the tech industry really be in a better position if they reduced their scrutiny?  Or if they applied it only to certain companies.</p><p>To me it seems a bit "convenient" that, in an economy where many jobs have to be lost anyhow (and as a merger is occurring, which may also naturally lead to job losses) people are blaming job losses solely on the regulators doing their jobs and not on sharp practice, opportunism or plain lack of co-operation from large multinationals operating in a cutthroat market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns ?
If not , why not ?
If they 're genuine concerns - they sound like it - why is it just the EU that 's following them up ? There generally seems to be a certain amount of frustration that the EU is holding up companies of US origin , although actually they have significant financial impact ( and offices and presumably regional headquarters and subsidiary companies ) in Europe too .
Presumably Oracle and Sun * themselves * could have predicted these hurdles if they 'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading ( albeit in different markets !
) database companies would be a worry for the regulators ? Presumably Oracle and Sun would be welcome to merge if they had terminated their entire presence in Europe - they 're not proposing doing that and one assumes it 's because Europe is a big enough financial interest for them that they believe it 's * worth the wait * .
They may not have a choice , in practical terms , but one assumes they have years / decades of making money from their European dealings so it 's not like the EU is just a plain dead weight for them.This is the same EU that is cracking down on anticompetitive behaviour from MS and Intel , which generally seem to be popular moves with folks here .
Would the tech industry really be in a better position if they reduced their scrutiny ?
Or if they applied it only to certain companies.To me it seems a bit " convenient " that , in an economy where many jobs have to be lost anyhow ( and as a merger is occurring , which may also naturally lead to job losses ) people are blaming job losses solely on the regulators doing their jobs and not on sharp practice , opportunism or plain lack of co-operation from large multinationals operating in a cutthroat market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns?
If not, why not?
If they're genuine concerns - they sound like it - why is it just the EU that's following them up?There generally seems to be a certain amount of frustration that the EU is holding up companies of US origin, although actually they have significant financial impact (and offices and presumably regional headquarters and subsidiary companies) in Europe too.
Presumably Oracle and Sun *themselves* could have predicted these hurdles if they'd done their homework - is it really that outlandish to expect that merging two leading (albeit in different markets!
) database companies would be a worry for the regulators?Presumably Oracle and Sun would be welcome to merge if they had terminated their entire presence in Europe - they're not proposing doing that and one assumes it's because Europe is a big enough financial interest for them that they believe it's *worth the wait*.
They may not have a choice, in practical terms, but one assumes they have years / decades of making money from their European dealings so it's not like the EU is just a plain dead weight for them.This is the same EU that is cracking down on anticompetitive behaviour from MS and Intel, which generally seem to be popular moves with folks here.
Would the tech industry really be in a better position if they reduced their scrutiny?
Or if they applied it only to certain companies.To me it seems a bit "convenient" that, in an economy where many jobs have to be lost anyhow (and as a merger is occurring, which may also naturally lead to job losses) people are blaming job losses solely on the regulators doing their jobs and not on sharp practice, opportunism or plain lack of co-operation from large multinationals operating in a cutthroat market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826713</id>
	<title>Not guilty until proven?</title>
	<author>Carra</author>
	<datestamp>1256154000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oracle failed to produce, despite repeated requests, either hard evidence that there were no competition problems</p></div><p>
I thought the accusers have to come up with the evidence in a court case?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle failed to produce , despite repeated requests , either hard evidence that there were no competition problems I thought the accusers have to come up with the evidence in a court case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle failed to produce, despite repeated requests, either hard evidence that there were no competition problems
I thought the accusers have to come up with the evidence in a court case?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825695</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>GameMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256150160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If, by not merging, Sun goes out of business, then no more support for your newly purchased equipment.  Of course, I don't have any idea how likely Sun is to go under, but that's what they're trying to allude to in pressuring the EU.  As for counter evidence, just point to all the competing products/companies that will still exist in their markets after the merger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If , by not merging , Sun goes out of business , then no more support for your newly purchased equipment .
Of course , I do n't have any idea how likely Sun is to go under , but that 's what they 're trying to allude to in pressuring the EU .
As for counter evidence , just point to all the competing products/companies that will still exist in their markets after the merger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, by not merging, Sun goes out of business, then no more support for your newly purchased equipment.
Of course, I don't have any idea how likely Sun is to go under, but that's what they're trying to allude to in pressuring the EU.
As for counter evidence, just point to all the competing products/companies that will still exist in their markets after the merger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826525</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256153220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'd probably go a long way toward making the Europeans happy if they'd spin MySQL off as an independent organization.  Ellison needs to decide which he wants more--the ability to kill off a competing database (and let's face it, that has to have been the intent) or to be in control of where Java goes from here.  The latter would seem to be the bigger plum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'd probably go a long way toward making the Europeans happy if they 'd spin MySQL off as an independent organization .
Ellison needs to decide which he wants more--the ability to kill off a competing database ( and let 's face it , that has to have been the intent ) or to be in control of where Java goes from here .
The latter would seem to be the bigger plum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'd probably go a long way toward making the Europeans happy if they'd spin MySQL off as an independent organization.
Ellison needs to decide which he wants more--the ability to kill off a competing database (and let's face it, that has to have been the intent) or to be in control of where Java goes from here.
The latter would seem to be the bigger plum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831687</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256143680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.</i> </p><p>The fact that Oracle didn't do exactly that is really the strongest indication that Oracle really did have some anticompetitive intent with the acquisition.</p></div><p>Oh, c'mon.  They're buying a company with multiple assets.  You have to assume they offered the money they did because they expected value from those assets.  To say categorically that not jettisoning any given asset is "anticompetitive" in intent is bordering on paranoid.  How about, "the fact that Oracle didn't jettison MySQL is a strong indication that Oracle sees value in owning MySQL, and sees no benefit in dumping it just because someone asks them to for no good reason."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance .
The fact that Oracle did n't do exactly that is really the strongest indication that Oracle really did have some anticompetitive intent with the acquisition.Oh , c'mon .
They 're buying a company with multiple assets .
You have to assume they offered the money they did because they expected value from those assets .
To say categorically that not jettisoning any given asset is " anticompetitive " in intent is bordering on paranoid .
How about , " the fact that Oracle did n't jettison MySQL is a strong indication that Oracle sees value in owning MySQL , and sees no benefit in dumping it just because someone asks them to for no good reason .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.
The fact that Oracle didn't do exactly that is really the strongest indication that Oracle really did have some anticompetitive intent with the acquisition.Oh, c'mon.
They're buying a company with multiple assets.
You have to assume they offered the money they did because they expected value from those assets.
To say categorically that not jettisoning any given asset is "anticompetitive" in intent is bordering on paranoid.
How about, "the fact that Oracle didn't jettison MySQL is a strong indication that Oracle sees value in owning MySQL, and sees no benefit in dumping it just because someone asks them to for no good reason.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830465</id>
	<title>Re:Regulatory agencies run amok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256130300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun is cutting 10\%.  The EU will cut the other 90\%.  Problem solved.</p><p>You didn't really want Sun to be purchased by a *software* company anyway, did you?  Heh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun is cutting 10 \ % .
The EU will cut the other 90 \ % .
Problem solved.You did n't really want Sun to be purchased by a * software * company anyway , did you ?
Heh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun is cutting 10\%.
The EU will cut the other 90\%.
Problem solved.You didn't really want Sun to be purchased by a *software* company anyway, did you?
Heh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826351</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256152620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, that's the first time I've seen Oracle used as a verb. You've been Oracled on must mean something like Larry has peed on your rose bushes (egads, not again). Solaris probably will get Oracled on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's the first time I 've seen Oracle used as a verb .
You 've been Oracled on must mean something like Larry has peed on your rose bushes ( egads , not again ) .
Solaris probably will get Oracled on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's the first time I've seen Oracle used as a verb.
You've been Oracled on must mean something like Larry has peed on your rose bushes (egads, not again).
Solaris probably will get Oracled on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829319</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1256122440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you assume that MySQL is an important Sun asset that was a significant factor in Oracle deciding to make the deal, then they wouldn't jettison at the first sign of regulatory resistance, especially if they anticipated that there might be some of that.</p><p>If you assume that the various critics are right, and MySQL is mostly a threat to Oracle they want to kill rather than maintain, then the uncertainty about the future of MySQL created by the EU's regulatory attention, and the damage it can do to MySQL in the market, is valuable to Oracle and serves the exact same goal that the critics think Oracle would be seeking to advance by buying Sun then killing MySQL. Plus, it lets Oracle blame it on the EU.</p><p>So, I fail to see the justification for your conclusion that "if they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.If you assume that MySQL is an important Sun asset that was a significant factor in Oracle deciding to make the deal , then they would n't jettison at the first sign of regulatory resistance , especially if they anticipated that there might be some of that.If you assume that the various critics are right , and MySQL is mostly a threat to Oracle they want to kill rather than maintain , then the uncertainty about the future of MySQL created by the EU 's regulatory attention , and the damage it can do to MySQL in the market , is valuable to Oracle and serves the exact same goal that the critics think Oracle would be seeking to advance by buying Sun then killing MySQL .
Plus , it lets Oracle blame it on the EU.So , I fail to see the justification for your conclusion that " if they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.If you assume that MySQL is an important Sun asset that was a significant factor in Oracle deciding to make the deal, then they wouldn't jettison at the first sign of regulatory resistance, especially if they anticipated that there might be some of that.If you assume that the various critics are right, and MySQL is mostly a threat to Oracle they want to kill rather than maintain, then the uncertainty about the future of MySQL created by the EU's regulatory attention, and the damage it can do to MySQL in the market, is valuable to Oracle and serves the exact same goal that the critics think Oracle would be seeking to advance by buying Sun then killing MySQL.
Plus, it lets Oracle blame it on the EU.So, I fail to see the justification for your conclusion that "if they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830577</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1256131140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Takes a lot of head count to work on software and SPARC projects that never get released.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Takes a lot of head count to work on software and SPARC projects that never get released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Takes a lot of head count to work on software and SPARC projects that never get released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29832129</id>
	<title>Re:Regulatory agencies run amok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because they want to own 100\% of the OSS database enterprise market.</p></div><p>So, you're saying that Oracle now owns SQLite and Postgres as well?<br>MySQL is insignificant. If that's the acquisition they need to prove isn't anti-competitive, all they need to do is point out that PostgreSQL still exists. SQLite still exists. DB2 is still owned by IBM, Microsoft still sells SQL Server.</p><p>Who gets to control Java is a much more pressing matter, given that the entire industry depends on it (save for the Microsoft shops), and what happens to the playing field when Oracle owns the complete stack top to bottom (Hardware, operating system, platform/framework, middleware, and the database).</p><p>But no, you're absolutely right. None of that is important, it's all about MySQL and owning the OSS database market (because Postgres magically disappeared, ZOMG).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they want to own 100 \ % of the OSS database enterprise market.So , you 're saying that Oracle now owns SQLite and Postgres as well ? MySQL is insignificant .
If that 's the acquisition they need to prove is n't anti-competitive , all they need to do is point out that PostgreSQL still exists .
SQLite still exists .
DB2 is still owned by IBM , Microsoft still sells SQL Server.Who gets to control Java is a much more pressing matter , given that the entire industry depends on it ( save for the Microsoft shops ) , and what happens to the playing field when Oracle owns the complete stack top to bottom ( Hardware , operating system , platform/framework , middleware , and the database ) .But no , you 're absolutely right .
None of that is important , it 's all about MySQL and owning the OSS database market ( because Postgres magically disappeared , ZOMG ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they want to own 100\% of the OSS database enterprise market.So, you're saying that Oracle now owns SQLite and Postgres as well?MySQL is insignificant.
If that's the acquisition they need to prove isn't anti-competitive, all they need to do is point out that PostgreSQL still exists.
SQLite still exists.
DB2 is still owned by IBM, Microsoft still sells SQL Server.Who gets to control Java is a much more pressing matter, given that the entire industry depends on it (save for the Microsoft shops), and what happens to the playing field when Oracle owns the complete stack top to bottom (Hardware, operating system, platform/framework, middleware, and the database).But no, you're absolutely right.
None of that is important, it's all about MySQL and owning the OSS database market (because Postgres magically disappeared, ZOMG).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829475</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1256123280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have it on good authority that many of them post to Slashdot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have it on good authority that many of them post to Slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have it on good authority that many of them post to Slashdot...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830847</id>
	<title>Re:mysql?</title>
	<author>notamisfit</author>
	<datestamp>1256133540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MySQL is dual-licensed, and IIRC the commercial side and it's support business are the holdup. Think of it this way: Linux may be free, but if Microsoft put in a bid to buy out Red Hat tomorrow, do you think the regulators wouldn't care?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MySQL is dual-licensed , and IIRC the commercial side and it 's support business are the holdup .
Think of it this way : Linux may be free , but if Microsoft put in a bid to buy out Red Hat tomorrow , do you think the regulators would n't care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySQL is dual-licensed, and IIRC the commercial side and it's support business are the holdup.
Think of it this way: Linux may be free, but if Microsoft put in a bid to buy out Red Hat tomorrow, do you think the regulators wouldn't care?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826463</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256152980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.</p></div></blockquote><p>But they aren't Rational.  <a href="http://www-01.ibm.com/software/rational/" title="ibm.com">Rational is owned by IBM.</a> [ibm.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.But they are n't Rational .
Rational is owned by IBM .
[ ibm.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were rational they would have jettisoned MySQL at the first sign of EU resistance.But they aren't Rational.
Rational is owned by IBM.
[ibm.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830615</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1256131320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My read is Oracle is using the threat of job losses to hold the EU's feet to the fire.  No matter what kind of up-front work they've done it's a long, drawn out process.  By threatening to cut jobs, especially jobs in Europe, Oracle hopes to apply political pressure on the regulators.  Politicians don't like to be in a position where they might get blamed for job losses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My read is Oracle is using the threat of job losses to hold the EU 's feet to the fire .
No matter what kind of up-front work they 've done it 's a long , drawn out process .
By threatening to cut jobs , especially jobs in Europe , Oracle hopes to apply political pressure on the regulators .
Politicians do n't like to be in a position where they might get blamed for job losses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My read is Oracle is using the threat of job losses to hold the EU's feet to the fire.
No matter what kind of up-front work they've done it's a long, drawn out process.
By threatening to cut jobs, especially jobs in Europe, Oracle hopes to apply political pressure on the regulators.
Politicians don't like to be in a position where they might get blamed for job losses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827989</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256116440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where I work we could lose 1/2 our staff and nothing would be lost.  And by their standards, we are "staff lean".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I work we could lose 1/2 our staff and nothing would be lost .
And by their standards , we are " staff lean " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I work we could lose 1/2 our staff and nothing would be lost.
And by their standards, we are "staff lean".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827581</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1256157900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they aren't "american companies". They are multinational corporations. They have offices and subsidaries in Europe and probably a dozen other places all around the world. Their HQs happen to be in the USA, but aside from that they're only "american" when appealing to patriotism serves their bottom line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they are n't " american companies " .
They are multinational corporations .
They have offices and subsidaries in Europe and probably a dozen other places all around the world .
Their HQs happen to be in the USA , but aside from that they 're only " american " when appealing to patriotism serves their bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they aren't "american companies".
They are multinational corporations.
They have offices and subsidaries in Europe and probably a dozen other places all around the world.
Their HQs happen to be in the USA, but aside from that they're only "american" when appealing to patriotism serves their bottom line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830463</id>
	<title>payback</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256130300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is Europeans screwing Americans.  How many Americans would care if Audi merged with Mercedes or Ericson merged with Philips?  And how PO'd would Europeans be if America interfered?  This is just payback for America interfering with Germany's attempts to merge with the rest of Europe in 1914 and 1939 and interfering with Russia's desire to acquire warm water ports in France or Italy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Europeans screwing Americans .
How many Americans would care if Audi merged with Mercedes or Ericson merged with Philips ?
And how PO 'd would Europeans be if America interfered ?
This is just payback for America interfering with Germany 's attempts to merge with the rest of Europe in 1914 and 1939 and interfering with Russia 's desire to acquire warm water ports in France or Italy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Europeans screwing Americans.
How many Americans would care if Audi merged with Mercedes or Ericson merged with Philips?
And how PO'd would Europeans be if America interfered?
This is just payback for America interfering with Germany's attempts to merge with the rest of Europe in 1914 and 1939 and interfering with Russia's desire to acquire warm water ports in France or Italy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829767</id>
	<title>Re:Did the US regulators have the same concerns?</title>
	<author>Zontar The Mindless</author>
	<datestamp>1256125260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And given that Oracle is acquiring MySQL with this merger...</p></div><p>Maybe not -- at least, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8319624.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">according to this report from the BBC, Oracle are now saying that they'll sell MySQL to gain approval</a> [bbc.co.uk].</p><p>I think this story possibly contains a typo.</p><p>But -- as of right now ("last updated 21:27 GMT, Wednesday, 21 October 2009"), the next-to-last paragraph of the BBC article says (copy/paste, emphasis added),</p><blockquote><div><p>Oracle maintains that there would be no conflict of interest and <b>has promised to sell off MySQL to get the deal approved</b>.</p></div></blockquote><p>If true, this comes as quite a surprise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And given that Oracle is acquiring MySQL with this merger...Maybe not -- at least , according to this report from the BBC , Oracle are now saying that they 'll sell MySQL to gain approval [ bbc.co.uk ] .I think this story possibly contains a typo.But -- as of right now ( " last updated 21 : 27 GMT , Wednesday , 21 October 2009 " ) , the next-to-last paragraph of the BBC article says ( copy/paste , emphasis added ) ,Oracle maintains that there would be no conflict of interest and has promised to sell off MySQL to get the deal approved.If true , this comes as quite a surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And given that Oracle is acquiring MySQL with this merger...Maybe not -- at least, according to this report from the BBC, Oracle are now saying that they'll sell MySQL to gain approval [bbc.co.uk].I think this story possibly contains a typo.But -- as of right now ("last updated 21:27 GMT, Wednesday, 21 October 2009"), the next-to-last paragraph of the BBC article says (copy/paste, emphasis added),Oracle maintains that there would be no conflict of interest and has promised to sell off MySQL to get the deal approved.If true, this comes as quite a surprise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830943</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256134260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to greatly over estimate the intelligence of people at a large corporation.  Also this type of merger has had no problem going through the EU in the past, so somebody is probably getting paid to delay this a bit.  Do you honestly believe that Oracle wouldn't show all the competitors that still exist "if" this deal gets approved?  Think about that for a second...  A FREAKING billion dollar deal and all this paid off lady wants is some proof a competition?  My bet is Oracle has shown that multiple times and will show it again.  Lets think about this... IBM, HP, Microsoft/Intel, Microsoft/Dell.  Hell just Microsoft alone (yes they have a hardware division).  So the real question is who benefits from this delay?  The above companies.  Who probably gains the most?  IBM and HP, then Microsoft.  You want to take a bet that at least one of those companies has some money trail to the E.U.?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to greatly over estimate the intelligence of people at a large corporation .
Also this type of merger has had no problem going through the EU in the past , so somebody is probably getting paid to delay this a bit .
Do you honestly believe that Oracle would n't show all the competitors that still exist " if " this deal gets approved ?
Think about that for a second... A FREAKING billion dollar deal and all this paid off lady wants is some proof a competition ?
My bet is Oracle has shown that multiple times and will show it again .
Lets think about this... IBM , HP , Microsoft/Intel , Microsoft/Dell .
Hell just Microsoft alone ( yes they have a hardware division ) .
So the real question is who benefits from this delay ?
The above companies .
Who probably gains the most ?
IBM and HP , then Microsoft .
You want to take a bet that at least one of those companies has some money trail to the E.U .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to greatly over estimate the intelligence of people at a large corporation.
Also this type of merger has had no problem going through the EU in the past, so somebody is probably getting paid to delay this a bit.
Do you honestly believe that Oracle wouldn't show all the competitors that still exist "if" this deal gets approved?
Think about that for a second...  A FREAKING billion dollar deal and all this paid off lady wants is some proof a competition?
My bet is Oracle has shown that multiple times and will show it again.
Lets think about this... IBM, HP, Microsoft/Intel, Microsoft/Dell.
Hell just Microsoft alone (yes they have a hardware division).
So the real question is who benefits from this delay?
The above companies.
Who probably gains the most?
IBM and HP, then Microsoft.
You want to take a bet that at least one of those companies has some money trail to the E.U.
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826671</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>PietjeJantje</author>
	<datestamp>1256153880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that you have little sympathy for the EU here, without any stated reasons - it is coming from the guts, is exactly why Larry managed to use this nonsense to hide their own evil reasons for the layoffs, by using people who bend forwards and follow up on the nonsense. Stop being Larry's instrument. You look clearly wrong here. And hey, I provided actual argumentation, unlike you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that you have little sympathy for the EU here , without any stated reasons - it is coming from the guts , is exactly why Larry managed to use this nonsense to hide their own evil reasons for the layoffs , by using people who bend forwards and follow up on the nonsense .
Stop being Larry 's instrument .
You look clearly wrong here .
And hey , I provided actual argumentation , unlike you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that you have little sympathy for the EU here, without any stated reasons - it is coming from the guts, is exactly why Larry managed to use this nonsense to hide their own evil reasons for the layoffs, by using people who bend forwards and follow up on the nonsense.
Stop being Larry's instrument.
You look clearly wrong here.
And hey, I provided actual argumentation, unlike you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829857</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>etymxris</author>
	<datestamp>1256125860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But really, in the short term I don't see the schedule of the merger really affecting the scale of the losses. The uncertainty of Suns customers wouldn't be ameliorated by having Oracle finalized as an owner, so pretty much the only thing that'd change would perhaps be the interest rate on some loans.</p><p>It simply isn't the EU that's causing the losses and they'd be there either way.</p></div><p>Sun's losses have everything to do with the delays in their acquisition by Oracle. What's happening is that Sun's future is now uncertain. Sun is either bought by Oracle or they go out of business. Businesses hate uncertainty. Sun may still be in business next year, or maybe they won't be. That's not reassuring. So businesses are dumping Sun's products left and right, even faster than they were before. It is likely that there would have been serious financial and market share losses anyway, but the EU delays have made things much worse than they otherwise would have been.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But really , in the short term I do n't see the schedule of the merger really affecting the scale of the losses .
The uncertainty of Suns customers would n't be ameliorated by having Oracle finalized as an owner , so pretty much the only thing that 'd change would perhaps be the interest rate on some loans.It simply is n't the EU that 's causing the losses and they 'd be there either way.Sun 's losses have everything to do with the delays in their acquisition by Oracle .
What 's happening is that Sun 's future is now uncertain .
Sun is either bought by Oracle or they go out of business .
Businesses hate uncertainty .
Sun may still be in business next year , or maybe they wo n't be .
That 's not reassuring .
So businesses are dumping Sun 's products left and right , even faster than they were before .
It is likely that there would have been serious financial and market share losses anyway , but the EU delays have made things much worse than they otherwise would have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But really, in the short term I don't see the schedule of the merger really affecting the scale of the losses.
The uncertainty of Suns customers wouldn't be ameliorated by having Oracle finalized as an owner, so pretty much the only thing that'd change would perhaps be the interest rate on some loans.It simply isn't the EU that's causing the losses and they'd be there either way.Sun's losses have everything to do with the delays in their acquisition by Oracle.
What's happening is that Sun's future is now uncertain.
Sun is either bought by Oracle or they go out of business.
Businesses hate uncertainty.
Sun may still be in business next year, or maybe they won't be.
That's not reassuring.
So businesses are dumping Sun's products left and right, even faster than they were before.
It is likely that there would have been serious financial and market share losses anyway, but the EU delays have made things much worse than they otherwise would have been.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828467</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1256118300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place"</p><p>That's it. Fire the 3000 employees closer to whoever made this stupid decision.</p><p>Their marketing team should go too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place " That 's it .
Fire the 3000 employees closer to whoever made this stupid decision.Their marketing team should go too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place"That's it.
Fire the 3000 employees closer to whoever made this stupid decision.Their marketing team should go too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29832817</id>
	<title>Prove a negative?</title>
	<author>ratpick</author>
	<datestamp>1256204040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, the EU Comissioner asked Oracle for "...hard evidence that there were no competition problems..."  Gee, I wonder why they were unable to produce evidence of a negative quality?  Was Oracle expected to investigate every possible competition problem and assure this fool--er, person--that none were valid?  If this quote is accurate, it would seem to make a strong argument for biased treatment of this merger.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the EU Comissioner asked Oracle for " ...hard evidence that there were no competition problems... " Gee , I wonder why they were unable to produce evidence of a negative quality ?
Was Oracle expected to investigate every possible competition problem and assure this fool--er , person--that none were valid ?
If this quote is accurate , it would seem to make a strong argument for biased treatment of this merger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the EU Comissioner asked Oracle for "...hard evidence that there were no competition problems..."  Gee, I wonder why they were unable to produce evidence of a negative quality?
Was Oracle expected to investigate every possible competition problem and assure this fool--er, person--that none were valid?
If this quote is accurate, it would seem to make a strong argument for biased treatment of this merger.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521</id>
	<title>Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does Europe get to hold up a purchase of an American company by an American company? Or is that not the case?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Europe get to hold up a purchase of an American company by an American company ?
Or is that not the case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Europe get to hold up a purchase of an American company by an American company?
Or is that not the case?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256152800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That said, I have little sympathy for the EU here. They're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun's coffers due to the delays</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, nonsense.  An organization the size of Oracle had to know that a merger like this would attract regulatory scrutiny.  Every single news story about this has brought up that regulators would be looking at this one carefully.  This shouldn't be a surprise that it's getting attention.  Also, anyone who's paid attention to the Microsoft battles with the EU should have been aware they the EU competition regulators are much stricter than the US regulators.</p><p>Basically, for Oracle to pull this deal, they had a responsibility (I'll even go so far as to call it a fiduciary duty, since it's apparently costing them lots of money) to be ready for this scrutiny.  This story seems to indicate that they weren't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , I have little sympathy for the EU here .
They 're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun 's coffers due to the delaysOh , nonsense .
An organization the size of Oracle had to know that a merger like this would attract regulatory scrutiny .
Every single news story about this has brought up that regulators would be looking at this one carefully .
This should n't be a surprise that it 's getting attention .
Also , anyone who 's paid attention to the Microsoft battles with the EU should have been aware they the EU competition regulators are much stricter than the US regulators.Basically , for Oracle to pull this deal , they had a responsibility ( I 'll even go so far as to call it a fiduciary duty , since it 's apparently costing them lots of money ) to be ready for this scrutiny .
This story seems to indicate that they were n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, I have little sympathy for the EU here.
They're taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Oracle/Sun's coffers due to the delaysOh, nonsense.
An organization the size of Oracle had to know that a merger like this would attract regulatory scrutiny.
Every single news story about this has brought up that regulators would be looking at this one carefully.
This shouldn't be a surprise that it's getting attention.
Also, anyone who's paid attention to the Microsoft battles with the EU should have been aware they the EU competition regulators are much stricter than the US regulators.Basically, for Oracle to pull this deal, they had a responsibility (I'll even go so far as to call it a fiduciary duty, since it's apparently costing them lots of money) to be ready for this scrutiny.
This story seems to indicate that they weren't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829891</id>
	<title>Re:Regulatory agencies run amok</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1256126040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What does free market tell you, when the same or approximately equivalent product is available for free from another source?
</p><p>
PostgreSQL is probably the best example, primarily because there is no GPL encumberance  (otherwise, an OSS fork of MySQL would count, but developers of commercial applications that embed MySQL do need a commercial license).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does free market tell you , when the same or approximately equivalent product is available for free from another source ?
PostgreSQL is probably the best example , primarily because there is no GPL encumberance ( otherwise , an OSS fork of MySQL would count , but developers of commercial applications that embed MySQL do need a commercial license ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What does free market tell you, when the same or approximately equivalent product is available for free from another source?
PostgreSQL is probably the best example, primarily because there is no GPL encumberance  (otherwise, an OSS fork of MySQL would count, but developers of commercial applications that embed MySQL do need a commercial license).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29833573</id>
	<title>Re:MySQL isn't nearly worth the losses Sun is taki</title>
	<author>Jon\_E</author>
	<datestamp>1256214600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place.</p> </div><p>easy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. to screw Oracle over (who was in turn screwing over their customers to turn more licensing revenue on CMT, HT, containers etc)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. if you look at statements McGnarly <a href="http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid80\_gci1351994,00.html" title="techtarget.com"> made just this past spring</a> [techtarget.com] (before the IBM deal fell through) you'll find his references of Oracle as a cheap heroin dealer - which falls in line with their misguided tactic to try and take on the oracle empire<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. of course now that they've accepted Larry's "drug money" - i don't understand why they don't just spin the whole thing off again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. unless they can't afford to, or there's no other tinkerbell investors who believe enough with their wallet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place .
easy .. to screw Oracle over ( who was in turn screwing over their customers to turn more licensing revenue on CMT , HT , containers etc ) .. if you look at statements McGnarly made just this past spring [ techtarget.com ] ( before the IBM deal fell through ) you 'll find his references of Oracle as a cheap heroin dealer - which falls in line with their misguided tactic to try and take on the oracle empire .. of course now that they 've accepted Larry 's " drug money " - i do n't understand why they do n't just spin the whole thing off again .. unless they ca n't afford to , or there 's no other tinkerbell investors who believe enough with their wallet . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't even know why Sun paid a billion for it in the first place.
easy .. to screw Oracle over (who was in turn screwing over their customers to turn more licensing revenue on CMT, HT, containers etc) .. if you look at statements McGnarly  made just this past spring [techtarget.com] (before the IBM deal fell through) you'll find his references of Oracle as a cheap heroin dealer - which falls in line with their misguided tactic to try and take on the oracle empire .. of course now that they've accepted Larry's "drug money" - i don't understand why they don't just spin the whole thing off again .. unless they can't afford to, or there's no other tinkerbell investors who believe enough with their wallet ..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826263</id>
	<title>Re:Regulatory agencies run amok</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1256152320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does it do the public any good, if the regulatory agency  kills the competitor  being acquired, by delaying a decision?</p><p>By the time the acquisition is approved or rejected, Sun will be basically dead, and barely have any role as the competitor, anyways.</p></div><p>Obviously if you read TFS Oracle is responsible for not providing substantial data. If this was truly a harmless move they would have stopped this fictional $100 million/month charade and sold off MySQL already. But they don't want to. Why? Because they want to own 100\% of the OSS database enterprise market. So they get Sun to use the opportunity to fire 3000 people instead and say: "LOOK WHAT YOU MADE US DO!" With or without MySQL the merger will take place, they will fight until the bitter end, but either way those 3000 layoffs were probably planned months ago. You don't suddenly fire 3000 people, and anybody who think this is anything but months of planning and execution is naive and has never worked within management.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it do the public any good , if the regulatory agency kills the competitor being acquired , by delaying a decision ? By the time the acquisition is approved or rejected , Sun will be basically dead , and barely have any role as the competitor , anyways.Obviously if you read TFS Oracle is responsible for not providing substantial data .
If this was truly a harmless move they would have stopped this fictional $ 100 million/month charade and sold off MySQL already .
But they do n't want to .
Why ? Because they want to own 100 \ % of the OSS database enterprise market .
So they get Sun to use the opportunity to fire 3000 people instead and say : " LOOK WHAT YOU MADE US DO !
" With or without MySQL the merger will take place , they will fight until the bitter end , but either way those 3000 layoffs were probably planned months ago .
You do n't suddenly fire 3000 people , and anybody who think this is anything but months of planning and execution is naive and has never worked within management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it do the public any good, if the regulatory agency  kills the competitor  being acquired, by delaying a decision?By the time the acquisition is approved or rejected, Sun will be basically dead, and barely have any role as the competitor, anyways.Obviously if you read TFS Oracle is responsible for not providing substantial data.
If this was truly a harmless move they would have stopped this fictional $100 million/month charade and sold off MySQL already.
But they don't want to.
Why? Because they want to own 100\% of the OSS database enterprise market.
So they get Sun to use the opportunity to fire 3000 people instead and say: "LOOK WHAT YOU MADE US DO!
" With or without MySQL the merger will take place, they will fight until the bitter end, but either way those 3000 layoffs were probably planned months ago.
You don't suddenly fire 3000 people, and anybody who think this is anything but months of planning and execution is naive and has never worked within management.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826359</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1256152680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does Europe get to hold up a purchase of an American company by an American company? Or is that not the case?</p></div><p>Ever heard of multinationals?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Europe get to hold up a purchase of an American company by an American company ?
Or is that not the case ? Ever heard of multinationals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Europe get to hold up a purchase of an American company by an American company?
Or is that not the case?Ever heard of multinationals?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825787</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256150460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't depend on support from Oracle until the merger goes through, and Oracle can't really guarantee anything until the merger goes through.</p><p>I do agree with the sentiment though, and especially with the rest of the statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't depend on support from Oracle until the merger goes through , and Oracle ca n't really guarantee anything until the merger goes through.I do agree with the sentiment though , and especially with the rest of the statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't depend on support from Oracle until the merger goes through, and Oracle can't really guarantee anything until the merger goes through.I do agree with the sentiment though, and especially with the rest of the statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826067</id>
	<title>Re:I must be missing something</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256151540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that the longer the decision is delayed the longer Sun's EU employees get to keep their jobs doing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... whatever it is they do.</p><p>I dunno what Sun people do anymore. Every time I've called Sun for the last 5 or 6 years they seemed only vaguely interested in selling me a computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the longer the decision is delayed the longer Sun 's EU employees get to keep their jobs doing .... whatever it is they do.I dunno what Sun people do anymore .
Every time I 've called Sun for the last 5 or 6 years they seemed only vaguely interested in selling me a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the longer the decision is delayed the longer Sun's EU employees get to keep their jobs doing .... whatever it is they do.I dunno what Sun people do anymore.
Every time I've called Sun for the last 5 or 6 years they seemed only vaguely interested in selling me a computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826839</id>
	<title>Re:Regulatory agencies run amok</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256154540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does it do the public any good, if the regulatory agency  kills the competitor  being acquired, by delaying a decision?</p><p>By the time the acquisition is approved or rejected, Sun will be basically dead, and barely have any role as the competitor, anyways.</p></div><p>Well, now Neelie is such a good friend of Steve over at MS, I wonder if she cares too much about Sun taking a hit?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it do the public any good , if the regulatory agency kills the competitor being acquired , by delaying a decision ? By the time the acquisition is approved or rejected , Sun will be basically dead , and barely have any role as the competitor , anyways.Well , now Neelie is such a good friend of Steve over at MS , I wonder if she cares too much about Sun taking a hit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it do the public any good, if the regulatory agency  kills the competitor  being acquired, by delaying a decision?By the time the acquisition is approved or rejected, Sun will be basically dead, and barely have any role as the competitor, anyways.Well, now Neelie is such a good friend of Steve over at MS, I wonder if she cares too much about Sun taking a hit?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829393</id>
	<title>Re:Did the US regulators have the same concerns?</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1256122860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Did the US regulators have similar concerns? If not, why not? If they're genuine concerns - they sound like it - why is it just the EU that's following them up?</i></p><p>Gee, I don't know why the EU is dragging its feet, maybe because SAP is based in Germany?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns ?
If not , why not ?
If they 're genuine concerns - they sound like it - why is it just the EU that 's following them up ? Gee , I do n't know why the EU is dragging its feet , maybe because SAP is based in Germany ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the US regulators have similar concerns?
If not, why not?
If they're genuine concerns - they sound like it - why is it just the EU that's following them up?Gee, I don't know why the EU is dragging its feet, maybe because SAP is based in Germany?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29835477</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256227860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are both American companies, it's just that the Europeans like to stick their noses into places where it doesn't belong just to see how long it takes for it to get chopped off again.</p><p>The arguments about MySQL ARE very VAPID.  After all didn't one of the founders of MySQL leave to re-form another company using the MySQL codebase already?  And as others have pointed out there is PostgeSQL which DOES have MANY more high end db features built right into it, and for even lighter weights(e.g. embedding) there are things like SQLlite as well as others.</p><p>Oracle dbs are just too heavy and cumbersome for alot of the applications that something like MySQL is used for, and I can't really see companies running out and replacing MySQL with Oracle.  Hell for that matter in the higher end dbs there's already lots of competition from IBM &amp; MS just to name two larger competitors, along with a multitude of smaller proprietary RDBMS.  Hell, just go look at the various wikipedia pages about SQL dbs, the listing is fairly large for such a narrow market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are both American companies , it 's just that the Europeans like to stick their noses into places where it does n't belong just to see how long it takes for it to get chopped off again.The arguments about MySQL ARE very VAPID .
After all did n't one of the founders of MySQL leave to re-form another company using the MySQL codebase already ?
And as others have pointed out there is PostgeSQL which DOES have MANY more high end db features built right into it , and for even lighter weights ( e.g .
embedding ) there are things like SQLlite as well as others.Oracle dbs are just too heavy and cumbersome for alot of the applications that something like MySQL is used for , and I ca n't really see companies running out and replacing MySQL with Oracle .
Hell for that matter in the higher end dbs there 's already lots of competition from IBM &amp; MS just to name two larger competitors , along with a multitude of smaller proprietary RDBMS .
Hell , just go look at the various wikipedia pages about SQL dbs , the listing is fairly large for such a narrow market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are both American companies, it's just that the Europeans like to stick their noses into places where it doesn't belong just to see how long it takes for it to get chopped off again.The arguments about MySQL ARE very VAPID.
After all didn't one of the founders of MySQL leave to re-form another company using the MySQL codebase already?
And as others have pointed out there is PostgeSQL which DOES have MANY more high end db features built right into it, and for even lighter weights(e.g.
embedding) there are things like SQLlite as well as others.Oracle dbs are just too heavy and cumbersome for alot of the applications that something like MySQL is used for, and I can't really see companies running out and replacing MySQL with Oracle.
Hell for that matter in the higher end dbs there's already lots of competition from IBM &amp; MS just to name two larger competitors, along with a multitude of smaller proprietary RDBMS.
Hell, just go look at the various wikipedia pages about SQL dbs, the listing is fairly large for such a narrow market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825369</id>
	<title>Cloud Computing is Evil!!1!</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1256149080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The longer a cloud of uncertainty hangs over Sun, that drives customers into delays of purchases or into the hands of competitors...</p></div><p>I just don't see why Sun needed to use the cloud for uncertainty.  Companies have been doing this for years without the cloud.  Now they can't control it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The longer a cloud of uncertainty hangs over Sun , that drives customers into delays of purchases or into the hands of competitors...I just do n't see why Sun needed to use the cloud for uncertainty .
Companies have been doing this for years without the cloud .
Now they ca n't control it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The longer a cloud of uncertainty hangs over Sun, that drives customers into delays of purchases or into the hands of competitors...I just don't see why Sun needed to use the cloud for uncertainty.
Companies have been doing this for years without the cloud.
Now they can't control it!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828383</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud Computing is Evil!!1!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256117940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So rather than satisfy the queries of the EU, Oracle would rather whine and blame the EU for the razor gang they have every intention of letting loose on the Sun employees anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So rather than satisfy the queries of the EU , Oracle would rather whine and blame the EU for the razor gang they have every intention of letting loose on the Sun employees anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So rather than satisfy the queries of the EU, Oracle would rather whine and blame the EU for the razor gang they have every intention of letting loose on the Sun employees anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826457</id>
	<title>Re:Aren't these both US companies?</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1256152980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you don't like the laws of the land, take your business elsewhere. Sun and Oracle are more than welcome to leave.</p></div><p>And I'm sure every single European Sun/Oracle user who has invested millions in Sun/Oracle infrastructure will be more than happy to see them go (and sacrifice their investment) just to prove a rhetorical point of view.</p><p>

In fact, this is not about not liking a law, but about having to face the consequences of <b>a given interpretation and execution</b> of a law where such interpretation and execution are of nature that is uneducated at best and ideologically malignant at worse. </p><p>

I always thought that Europe would hold on to the enlightened principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Guess not. </p><p>

I don't like monopolies either, but there is no logic or justification behind this particular case. Take ideology and sentiment out, observe the case (and the available evidence) objectively, and you will arrive to that conclusion... if you are a reasonable person capable of objective analysis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like the laws of the land , take your business elsewhere .
Sun and Oracle are more than welcome to leave.And I 'm sure every single European Sun/Oracle user who has invested millions in Sun/Oracle infrastructure will be more than happy to see them go ( and sacrifice their investment ) just to prove a rhetorical point of view .
In fact , this is not about not liking a law , but about having to face the consequences of a given interpretation and execution of a law where such interpretation and execution are of nature that is uneducated at best and ideologically malignant at worse .
I always thought that Europe would hold on to the enlightened principle of " innocent until proven guilty " .
Guess not .
I do n't like monopolies either , but there is no logic or justification behind this particular case .
Take ideology and sentiment out , observe the case ( and the available evidence ) objectively , and you will arrive to that conclusion... if you are a reasonable person capable of objective analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like the laws of the land, take your business elsewhere.
Sun and Oracle are more than welcome to leave.And I'm sure every single European Sun/Oracle user who has invested millions in Sun/Oracle infrastructure will be more than happy to see them go (and sacrifice their investment) just to prove a rhetorical point of view.
In fact, this is not about not liking a law, but about having to face the consequences of a given interpretation and execution of a law where such interpretation and execution are of nature that is uneducated at best and ideologically malignant at worse.
I always thought that Europe would hold on to the enlightened principle of "innocent until proven guilty".
Guess not.
I don't like monopolies either, but there is no logic or justification behind this particular case.
Take ideology and sentiment out, observe the case (and the available evidence) objectively, and you will arrive to that conclusion... if you are a reasonable person capable of objective analysis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825731</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29832129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29860465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29842283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29835477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29833573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1634223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829857
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826671
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826681
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29860465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29833573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29842283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29828393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826067
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29835477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29832129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29830847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29831755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29827459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826307
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29829393
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1634223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29825385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1634223.29826807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
