<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_12_1942207</id>
	<title>Microsoft Invents Price-Gouging the Least Influential</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260610440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"In the world envisioned by Microsoft's just-published <a href="http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=\%2220090307073\%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20090307073&amp;RS=DN/20090307073">patent application for Social Marketing</a>, monopolists will maximize revenue by charging prices inversely related to the perceived influence an individual has on others. Microsoft gives an example of a pricing model that charges different people $0, $5, $10, $20, or $25 for the identical item based on the influence the purchaser wields. A presentation describing the revenue optimization scheme <a href="http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=103759">earned one of the three inventors applause</a> (MS-Research video), and the so-called 'influence and exploit' strategies were also <a href="http://www2008.org/papers/pdf/p189-hartline.pdf">featured at WWW 2008</a> (PDF). The invention jibes nicely with <a href="http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2008/11/Gates\_top\_Microsoft\_executives\_do\_some\_inventing\_on\_the\_side34192179.html">Bill Gates's pending patents for identifying influencers</a>. Welcome to the <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/the\_thread/techbeat/archives/2009/12/want\_a\_job\_anal.html">brave new world of analytics</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " In the world envisioned by Microsoft 's just-published patent application for Social Marketing , monopolists will maximize revenue by charging prices inversely related to the perceived influence an individual has on others .
Microsoft gives an example of a pricing model that charges different people $ 0 , $ 5 , $ 10 , $ 20 , or $ 25 for the identical item based on the influence the purchaser wields .
A presentation describing the revenue optimization scheme earned one of the three inventors applause ( MS-Research video ) , and the so-called 'influence and exploit ' strategies were also featured at WWW 2008 ( PDF ) .
The invention jibes nicely with Bill Gates 's pending patents for identifying influencers .
Welcome to the brave new world of analytics .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "In the world envisioned by Microsoft's just-published patent application for Social Marketing, monopolists will maximize revenue by charging prices inversely related to the perceived influence an individual has on others.
Microsoft gives an example of a pricing model that charges different people $0, $5, $10, $20, or $25 for the identical item based on the influence the purchaser wields.
A presentation describing the revenue optimization scheme earned one of the three inventors applause (MS-Research video), and the so-called 'influence and exploit' strategies were also featured at WWW 2008 (PDF).
The invention jibes nicely with Bill Gates's pending patents for identifying influencers.
Welcome to the brave new world of analytics.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420264</id>
	<title>0ld business trick</title>
	<author>inflamed</author>
	<datestamp>1260641820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is hardly a new idea.  Businesses have been giving special deals to their "local customers" (who do work-of-mouth advertising) forever.  Take {some shop} ; they have great deals, and they have rip-off deals.  If you know what a good deal looks like, you'll shop there and boast of the great deal you got at {some shop}.  Your friends will wander in and fall for the $100 "setup fee" sales pitch.  {some shop} will keep getting your sheep-y friends' business as long as you keep taking advantage of their bifurcated price scheme.  So, we see it implemented in e-commerce too.  What a shock!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is hardly a new idea .
Businesses have been giving special deals to their " local customers " ( who do work-of-mouth advertising ) forever .
Take { some shop } ; they have great deals , and they have rip-off deals .
If you know what a good deal looks like , you 'll shop there and boast of the great deal you got at { some shop } .
Your friends will wander in and fall for the $ 100 " setup fee " sales pitch .
{ some shop } will keep getting your sheep-y friends ' business as long as you keep taking advantage of their bifurcated price scheme .
So , we see it implemented in e-commerce too .
What a shock !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is hardly a new idea.
Businesses have been giving special deals to their "local customers" (who do work-of-mouth advertising) forever.
Take {some shop} ; they have great deals, and they have rip-off deals.
If you know what a good deal looks like, you'll shop there and boast of the great deal you got at {some shop}.
Your friends will wander in and fall for the $100 "setup fee" sales pitch.
{some shop} will keep getting your sheep-y friends' business as long as you keep taking advantage of their bifurcated price scheme.
So, we see it implemented in e-commerce too.
What a shock!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417450</id>
	<title>puke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260614220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just puke. It's all I can think of right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just puke .
It 's all I can think of right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just puke.
It's all I can think of right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418706</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260626100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Based on my experience crap patents are easier to get than "real" patents.  My speculation is that this is because:<ul>
<li>there is less prior art</li><li>the examiner would rather let the courts figure it out than go back and forth with MSFT lawyers</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on my experience crap patents are easier to get than " real " patents .
My speculation is that this is because : there is less prior artthe examiner would rather let the courts figure it out than go back and forth with MSFT lawyers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on my experience crap patents are easier to get than "real" patents.
My speculation is that this is because:
there is less prior artthe examiner would rather let the courts figure it out than go back and forth with MSFT lawyers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419978</id>
	<title>Re:Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260639300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me like there's a very big opening for a new search company.  You need two things: (1) search and (2) a reasonable privacy policy.  People would flock to such a service in droves.  Same business model as Google - just sell ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me like there 's a very big opening for a new search company .
You need two things : ( 1 ) search and ( 2 ) a reasonable privacy policy .
People would flock to such a service in droves .
Same business model as Google - just sell ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me like there's a very big opening for a new search company.
You need two things: (1) search and (2) a reasonable privacy policy.
People would flock to such a service in droves.
Same business model as Google - just sell ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1260614280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bill Gates also used to think his MSN proprietary network paywall would have more success than any silly Internet thingie. What he fails to realize is than in an Internet era, where price information travels rapidly, prices converge towards fixed prices. Not this drivel.
<p>
Isn't this a business method patent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates also used to think his MSN proprietary network paywall would have more success than any silly Internet thingie .
What he fails to realize is than in an Internet era , where price information travels rapidly , prices converge towards fixed prices .
Not this drivel .
Is n't this a business method patent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates also used to think his MSN proprietary network paywall would have more success than any silly Internet thingie.
What he fails to realize is than in an Internet era, where price information travels rapidly, prices converge towards fixed prices.
Not this drivel.
Isn't this a business method patent?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418108</id>
	<title>This is ideal for a kick in the nuts analogy</title>
	<author>KickInNutsAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1260619080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Consider the following:

You've been tasked with junk-kicking the man business of a certain number of individuals. The parameters of your task are only concerned with the number of people junk-kicked; you decide which people's man business gets junk-kicked to meet your assigned quota. Are you going to junk-kick Vladamir Putin or Osama Bin Laden? How about Kim Jong-il? Tom Cruise? I would think not. That some of the aforementioned people might deserve a junk-kick in their man business matters not. They all have massive influence and could easily make you: disappear, die, rot in prison, or a level 5 Thetan.
<br>
<br>
The obvious targets for a junk-kick in the man business would be individuals with very little influence: Luxembourgians, <i>educated</i> American voters, Gary Coleman, The Jackson family sans Michael, and etc. These targets would have little recourse other than to accept a good junk-kick in the man business. In fact, some groups are repeatedly being junk-kicked in the man business (read: educated American Voters).
<br>
<br>
I think it's safe to say that a lack of influence == junk-kick in your man business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the following : You 've been tasked with junk-kicking the man business of a certain number of individuals .
The parameters of your task are only concerned with the number of people junk-kicked ; you decide which people 's man business gets junk-kicked to meet your assigned quota .
Are you going to junk-kick Vladamir Putin or Osama Bin Laden ?
How about Kim Jong-il ?
Tom Cruise ?
I would think not .
That some of the aforementioned people might deserve a junk-kick in their man business matters not .
They all have massive influence and could easily make you : disappear , die , rot in prison , or a level 5 Thetan .
The obvious targets for a junk-kick in the man business would be individuals with very little influence : Luxembourgians , educated American voters , Gary Coleman , The Jackson family sans Michael , and etc .
These targets would have little recourse other than to accept a good junk-kick in the man business .
In fact , some groups are repeatedly being junk-kicked in the man business ( read : educated American Voters ) .
I think it 's safe to say that a lack of influence = = junk-kick in your man business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider the following:

You've been tasked with junk-kicking the man business of a certain number of individuals.
The parameters of your task are only concerned with the number of people junk-kicked; you decide which people's man business gets junk-kicked to meet your assigned quota.
Are you going to junk-kick Vladamir Putin or Osama Bin Laden?
How about Kim Jong-il?
Tom Cruise?
I would think not.
That some of the aforementioned people might deserve a junk-kick in their man business matters not.
They all have massive influence and could easily make you: disappear, die, rot in prison, or a level 5 Thetan.
The obvious targets for a junk-kick in the man business would be individuals with very little influence: Luxembourgians, educated American voters, Gary Coleman, The Jackson family sans Michael, and etc.
These targets would have little recourse other than to accept a good junk-kick in the man business.
In fact, some groups are repeatedly being junk-kicked in the man business (read: educated American Voters).
I think it's safe to say that a lack of influence == junk-kick in your man business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417498</id>
	<title>Bullshitters and marketers posing as research</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260614580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop posting spam from these fucking bullshitters.  These assholes are wasting columns space that could be spent on technology, news for nerds or stuff that matters.  Leave the marketing elsewhere, especially from posers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop posting spam from these fucking bullshitters .
These assholes are wasting columns space that could be spent on technology , news for nerds or stuff that matters .
Leave the marketing elsewhere , especially from posers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop posting spam from these fucking bullshitters.
These assholes are wasting columns space that could be spent on technology, news for nerds or stuff that matters.
Leave the marketing elsewhere, especially from posers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418680</id>
	<title>Re:Should fail due to prior art.</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1260625740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true.  <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053.html" title="washingtonpost.com">It's expensive to be poor</a> [washingtonpost.com], and meanwhile the rich and famous get retarded amounts of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/03/oscar.swag/index.html" title="cnn.com">free shit</a> [cnn.com].
</p><p>Sometimes rich people are given free stuff because the vendor hopes it will lead to bigger purchases.  For example, you might buy dinner for a prospective client in order to get an account that would net you far more than the cost of the dinner.  Or sometimes people give rich people stuff out of a kind of hero worship.  But often, very often, the idea is that rich people will influence others through their fame or their contacts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true .
It 's expensive to be poor [ washingtonpost.com ] , and meanwhile the rich and famous get retarded amounts of free shit [ cnn.com ] .
Sometimes rich people are given free stuff because the vendor hopes it will lead to bigger purchases .
For example , you might buy dinner for a prospective client in order to get an account that would net you far more than the cost of the dinner .
Or sometimes people give rich people stuff out of a kind of hero worship .
But often , very often , the idea is that rich people will influence others through their fame or their contacts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true.
It's expensive to be poor [washingtonpost.com], and meanwhile the rich and famous get retarded amounts of free shit [cnn.com].
Sometimes rich people are given free stuff because the vendor hopes it will lead to bigger purchases.
For example, you might buy dinner for a prospective client in order to get an account that would net you far more than the cost of the dinner.
Or sometimes people give rich people stuff out of a kind of hero worship.
But often, very often, the idea is that rich people will influence others through their fame or their contacts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417620</id>
	<title>Nobel prize for Bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260615420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some day Bill Gates will be nominated for Nobel prize for his great work of philanthropy, for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some day Bill Gates will be nominated for Nobel prize for his great work of philanthropy , for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some day Bill Gates will be nominated for Nobel prize for his great work of philanthropy, for sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417484</id>
	<title>I wonder how long it would</title>
	<author>future assassin</author>
	<datestamp>1260614460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>take as a regular person (not a corporation) for me to be charged with some kind of "fill in the blank" conspiracy if I started keeping tabs on people like the corporations do.</p><p>Are we actually gonna be citizens in the next 50 years or just law abiding consumrzens with laws that put us into jail of we don't spend our money fast enough on new shiny things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>take as a regular person ( not a corporation ) for me to be charged with some kind of " fill in the blank " conspiracy if I started keeping tabs on people like the corporations do.Are we actually gon na be citizens in the next 50 years or just law abiding consumrzens with laws that put us into jail of we do n't spend our money fast enough on new shiny things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>take as a regular person (not a corporation) for me to be charged with some kind of "fill in the blank" conspiracy if I started keeping tabs on people like the corporations do.Are we actually gonna be citizens in the next 50 years or just law abiding consumrzens with laws that put us into jail of we don't spend our money fast enough on new shiny things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417658</id>
	<title>Bing</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1260615660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And someone just said yesterday that the privacy policy of Bing is better than the one for Google.</p><p>Looks like they have the next few revisions already in mind, with substantial changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And someone just said yesterday that the privacy policy of Bing is better than the one for Google.Looks like they have the next few revisions already in mind , with substantial changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And someone just said yesterday that the privacy policy of Bing is better than the one for Google.Looks like they have the next few revisions already in mind, with substantial changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417588</id>
	<title>Damn impressive spin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260615180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow.. I'm sure the summery and title could possibly be more inflammatory and inaccurate, but damn if I can think of how.. You did get me reading and searching through the thing, and.. not sure where to start, but.. there is absolutely no mentioning of "monopolists" in the patent, and it is not about 'price gouging the least influential' (damn I'm impressed by that reversed spin) this is supposedly a system to more scientifically differentiate how you identify and use influentials for marketing purposes (like how many bloggers today receive free or discounted samples to talk about, or just general discounts on a brand/store). This sort of thing has only been going on since people starting selling things to each other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow.. I 'm sure the summery and title could possibly be more inflammatory and inaccurate , but damn if I can think of how.. You did get me reading and searching through the thing , and.. not sure where to start , but.. there is absolutely no mentioning of " monopolists " in the patent , and it is not about 'price gouging the least influential ' ( damn I 'm impressed by that reversed spin ) this is supposedly a system to more scientifically differentiate how you identify and use influentials for marketing purposes ( like how many bloggers today receive free or discounted samples to talk about , or just general discounts on a brand/store ) .
This sort of thing has only been going on since people starting selling things to each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.. I'm sure the summery and title could possibly be more inflammatory and inaccurate, but damn if I can think of how.. You did get me reading and searching through the thing, and.. not sure where to start, but.. there is absolutely no mentioning of "monopolists" in the patent, and it is not about 'price gouging the least influential' (damn I'm impressed by that reversed spin) this is supposedly a system to more scientifically differentiate how you identify and use influentials for marketing purposes (like how many bloggers today receive free or discounted samples to talk about, or just general discounts on a brand/store).
This sort of thing has only been going on since people starting selling things to each other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421522</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>sqldr</author>
	<datestamp>1260702300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hitler was pretty influential.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hitler was pretty influential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hitler was pretty influential.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418492</id>
	<title>So, guys on eBay will trade their influence</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1260623220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least we can finally quantify and sell it the right way.  Frankly, politicians and MBAs were always half-assed.</p><p>Every supremely dumb idea is just a new opportunity for arbitrage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we can finally quantify and sell it the right way .
Frankly , politicians and MBAs were always half-assed.Every supremely dumb idea is just a new opportunity for arbitrage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we can finally quantify and sell it the right way.
Frankly, politicians and MBAs were always half-assed.Every supremely dumb idea is just a new opportunity for arbitrage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420154</id>
	<title>The Tipping Point</title>
	<author>CohibaVancouver</author>
	<datestamp>1260640860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know this is evil because it's Microsoft, blah blah blah (yawn)... However it's interesting to note that Malcolm Gladwell postulated something similar in his book "The Tipping Point."  In the book, he speaks extensively on the value of the influencers in our society.<br> <br>

From <a href="http://www.wikisummaries.org/The\_Tipping\_Point" title="wikisummaries.org">http://www.wikisummaries.org/The\_Tipping\_Point</a> [wikisummaries.org] <br> <br>


<i>Many trends are ushered into popularity by small groups of individuals that can be classified as Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen.  Connectors are individuals who have ties in many different realms and act as conduits between them, helping to engender connections, relationships, and "cross-fertilization" that otherwise might not have ever occurred. Mavens are people who have a strong compulsion to help other consumers by helping them make informed decisions. Salesmen are people whose unusual charisma allows them to be extremely persuasive in inducing others' buying decisions and behaviors. Gladwell identifies a number of examples of past trends and events that hinged on the influence and involvement of Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen at key moments in their development.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is evil because it 's Microsoft , blah blah blah ( yawn ) ... However it 's interesting to note that Malcolm Gladwell postulated something similar in his book " The Tipping Point .
" In the book , he speaks extensively on the value of the influencers in our society .
From http : //www.wikisummaries.org/The \ _Tipping \ _Point [ wikisummaries.org ] Many trends are ushered into popularity by small groups of individuals that can be classified as Connectors , Mavens , and Salesmen .
Connectors are individuals who have ties in many different realms and act as conduits between them , helping to engender connections , relationships , and " cross-fertilization " that otherwise might not have ever occurred .
Mavens are people who have a strong compulsion to help other consumers by helping them make informed decisions .
Salesmen are people whose unusual charisma allows them to be extremely persuasive in inducing others ' buying decisions and behaviors .
Gladwell identifies a number of examples of past trends and events that hinged on the influence and involvement of Connectors , Mavens , and Salesmen at key moments in their development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is evil because it's Microsoft, blah blah blah (yawn)... However it's interesting to note that Malcolm Gladwell postulated something similar in his book "The Tipping Point.
"  In the book, he speaks extensively on the value of the influencers in our society.
From http://www.wikisummaries.org/The\_Tipping\_Point [wikisummaries.org]  


Many trends are ushered into popularity by small groups of individuals that can be classified as Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen.
Connectors are individuals who have ties in many different realms and act as conduits between them, helping to engender connections, relationships, and "cross-fertilization" that otherwise might not have ever occurred.
Mavens are people who have a strong compulsion to help other consumers by helping them make informed decisions.
Salesmen are people whose unusual charisma allows them to be extremely persuasive in inducing others' buying decisions and behaviors.
Gladwell identifies a number of examples of past trends and events that hinged on the influence and involvement of Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen at key moments in their development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417754</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1260616260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have some nutty system where price curves aren't really defined beyond an individual level, prices aren't widely available, etc., all the usual pricing signals, resource allocation by the "invisible hand", etc., get a lot more muddled, and probably begin to break down.</p></div><p>Companies already have all sorts of way to optimize price models besides looking at a supply demand curve so as to pick one point of intersect.  Coupons and discounts allow you to charge more for wealthier individuals, who are less conscerned with spending their Sunday afternoons clipping newspapers.  Charging less for over-the-weekend flights means you are effectively able to set higher prices for business trips.  Those Pepsi-codes that give people prizes effectively makes Pepsi cheaper to the consumer based on his/her willingness to invest some extra time in winning contests.

</p><p>And overall this is no different than paying Michael Phelps $x-million to appear on a box of cereal, except now the $x-million is being distributed to somewhat more ordinary people who act as local rather than national advertisers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have some nutty system where price curves are n't really defined beyond an individual level , prices are n't widely available , etc. , all the usual pricing signals , resource allocation by the " invisible hand " , etc. , get a lot more muddled , and probably begin to break down.Companies already have all sorts of way to optimize price models besides looking at a supply demand curve so as to pick one point of intersect .
Coupons and discounts allow you to charge more for wealthier individuals , who are less conscerned with spending their Sunday afternoons clipping newspapers .
Charging less for over-the-weekend flights means you are effectively able to set higher prices for business trips .
Those Pepsi-codes that give people prizes effectively makes Pepsi cheaper to the consumer based on his/her willingness to invest some extra time in winning contests .
And overall this is no different than paying Michael Phelps $ x-million to appear on a box of cereal , except now the $ x-million is being distributed to somewhat more ordinary people who act as local rather than national advertisers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have some nutty system where price curves aren't really defined beyond an individual level, prices aren't widely available, etc., all the usual pricing signals, resource allocation by the "invisible hand", etc., get a lot more muddled, and probably begin to break down.Companies already have all sorts of way to optimize price models besides looking at a supply demand curve so as to pick one point of intersect.
Coupons and discounts allow you to charge more for wealthier individuals, who are less conscerned with spending their Sunday afternoons clipping newspapers.
Charging less for over-the-weekend flights means you are effectively able to set higher prices for business trips.
Those Pepsi-codes that give people prizes effectively makes Pepsi cheaper to the consumer based on his/her willingness to invest some extra time in winning contests.
And overall this is no different than paying Michael Phelps $x-million to appear on a box of cereal, except now the $x-million is being distributed to somewhat more ordinary people who act as local rather than national advertisers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417820</id>
	<title>Isn't this how capitalism works now?</title>
	<author>dfn5</author>
	<datestamp>1260616740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>an example of a pricing model that charges different people $0, $5, $10, $20, or $25 for the identical item based on the influence the purchaser wields.</p></div><p>This is just an observation, but when I hear things like "We got 80\% off list price for technology X from our vendor" it makes me wonder what the real value of the product is.  After reading this maybe the value of the product is really irrelevant and in our world of commerce it depends on how influential you are.  If that is the case how can they patent how the world currently works?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>an example of a pricing model that charges different people $ 0 , $ 5 , $ 10 , $ 20 , or $ 25 for the identical item based on the influence the purchaser wields.This is just an observation , but when I hear things like " We got 80 \ % off list price for technology X from our vendor " it makes me wonder what the real value of the product is .
After reading this maybe the value of the product is really irrelevant and in our world of commerce it depends on how influential you are .
If that is the case how can they patent how the world currently works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an example of a pricing model that charges different people $0, $5, $10, $20, or $25 for the identical item based on the influence the purchaser wields.This is just an observation, but when I hear things like "We got 80\% off list price for technology X from our vendor" it makes me wonder what the real value of the product is.
After reading this maybe the value of the product is really irrelevant and in our world of commerce it depends on how influential you are.
If that is the case how can they patent how the world currently works?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30434320</id>
	<title>Re:Should fail due to prior art.</title>
	<author>Pollardito</author>
	<datestamp>1260822120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  They've patented swag.  The free stuff that companies send to some magazines and bloggers in return for review posts?  more of the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
They 've patented swag .
The free stuff that companies send to some magazines and bloggers in return for review posts ?
more of the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
They've patented swag.
The free stuff that companies send to some magazines and bloggers in return for review posts?
more of the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417858</id>
	<title>Re:The commercialization of friendship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260616980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck 'em. Don't buy their shit. Hell, make it a general principle and don't buy shit in general. Ask yourself "Do I really need this"? Spend more money on food and wine, ideally without a long distribution chain between you and the producer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck 'em .
Do n't buy their shit .
Hell , make it a general principle and do n't buy shit in general .
Ask yourself " Do I really need this " ?
Spend more money on food and wine , ideally without a long distribution chain between you and the producer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck 'em.
Don't buy their shit.
Hell, make it a general principle and don't buy shit in general.
Ask yourself "Do I really need this"?
Spend more money on food and wine, ideally without a long distribution chain between you and the producer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418642</id>
	<title>Welcome to the new world....</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1260625320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clark Gable drove a custom built <a href="http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1936-Duesenberg-SSJ-Speedster.htm" title="howstuffworks.com">1936 Duesenberg Speedster</a> [howstuffworks.com] that likely cost him nothing more than the price of a fill-up.</p><p>The promotional price to the influential buyer is as old as dirt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clark Gable drove a custom built 1936 Duesenberg Speedster [ howstuffworks.com ] that likely cost him nothing more than the price of a fill-up.The promotional price to the influential buyer is as old as dirt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clark Gable drove a custom built 1936 Duesenberg Speedster [howstuffworks.com] that likely cost him nothing more than the price of a fill-up.The promotional price to the influential buyer is as old as dirt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418272</id>
	<title>An internet connection gives massive influence</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1260620640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>One bad review posted to a web forum can have a huge effect. When multiplied by 1000, I would expect the consensus view would be that few people would buy a product - if they saw that many bad reviews or negative votes or a given product. These guys had better be very careful about who they decide is not influential, they could just find that there's a difference between how motivated individuals are to spread good news about a product and the lengths others will go to if they feel they've been hard done by.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One bad review posted to a web forum can have a huge effect .
When multiplied by 1000 , I would expect the consensus view would be that few people would buy a product - if they saw that many bad reviews or negative votes or a given product .
These guys had better be very careful about who they decide is not influential , they could just find that there 's a difference between how motivated individuals are to spread good news about a product and the lengths others will go to if they feel they 've been hard done by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One bad review posted to a web forum can have a huge effect.
When multiplied by 1000, I would expect the consensus view would be that few people would buy a product - if they saw that many bad reviews or negative votes or a given product.
These guys had better be very careful about who they decide is not influential, they could just find that there's a difference between how motivated individuals are to spread good news about a product and the lengths others will go to if they feel they've been hard done by.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421896</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1260709320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bill Gates also used to think his MSN proprietary network paywall would have more success than any silly Internet thingie. What he fails to realize is than in an Internet era, where price information travels rapidly, prices converge towards fixed prices. Not this drivel.</p></div><p>Actually, I see where this pricing model may succeed.  First, if you look at pricing on the web it is all over the map.  Even the big payers often have very different prices.  Even on Ebay, even where buyers could set a max bid at the lowest price they can buy an item elsewhere, I see people more for items tahn they can at Amazon.  I've even seen BIN prices below current bid prices.  You would expect all the BIN stuff to go as soon as the bid price reched its price, but I've seen cases where that is not happening (and the sellers had similar feedback so it was not a trust issue).  While there may be a number of reasons (buying outside of the area where other retailers ship, for example); it also leads me to conclude buyers do not use teh pricing transparency of the internet to their advantage.</p><p>Second, retailers could serve up different prices once the buyer accesses their pages, so no buyer may see the same price.  Price search engines could either be ignored of fed a generic come-on price that changes when the buyer actually hits the retailer's page.  The dynamic pricing ability of the web has the potential to revolutionize pricing and raise the margins on products (as well lowering them).  Analytics, coupled with near instant data availability, give you the ability to gain real time insight into what's happening in the marketplace. More demand - jack up price until demand drops off, then drop it again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates also used to think his MSN proprietary network paywall would have more success than any silly Internet thingie .
What he fails to realize is than in an Internet era , where price information travels rapidly , prices converge towards fixed prices .
Not this drivel.Actually , I see where this pricing model may succeed .
First , if you look at pricing on the web it is all over the map .
Even the big payers often have very different prices .
Even on Ebay , even where buyers could set a max bid at the lowest price they can buy an item elsewhere , I see people more for items tahn they can at Amazon .
I 've even seen BIN prices below current bid prices .
You would expect all the BIN stuff to go as soon as the bid price reched its price , but I 've seen cases where that is not happening ( and the sellers had similar feedback so it was not a trust issue ) .
While there may be a number of reasons ( buying outside of the area where other retailers ship , for example ) ; it also leads me to conclude buyers do not use teh pricing transparency of the internet to their advantage.Second , retailers could serve up different prices once the buyer accesses their pages , so no buyer may see the same price .
Price search engines could either be ignored of fed a generic come-on price that changes when the buyer actually hits the retailer 's page .
The dynamic pricing ability of the web has the potential to revolutionize pricing and raise the margins on products ( as well lowering them ) .
Analytics , coupled with near instant data availability , give you the ability to gain real time insight into what 's happening in the marketplace .
More demand - jack up price until demand drops off , then drop it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates also used to think his MSN proprietary network paywall would have more success than any silly Internet thingie.
What he fails to realize is than in an Internet era, where price information travels rapidly, prices converge towards fixed prices.
Not this drivel.Actually, I see where this pricing model may succeed.
First, if you look at pricing on the web it is all over the map.
Even the big payers often have very different prices.
Even on Ebay, even where buyers could set a max bid at the lowest price they can buy an item elsewhere, I see people more for items tahn they can at Amazon.
I've even seen BIN prices below current bid prices.
You would expect all the BIN stuff to go as soon as the bid price reched its price, but I've seen cases where that is not happening (and the sellers had similar feedback so it was not a trust issue).
While there may be a number of reasons (buying outside of the area where other retailers ship, for example); it also leads me to conclude buyers do not use teh pricing transparency of the internet to their advantage.Second, retailers could serve up different prices once the buyer accesses their pages, so no buyer may see the same price.
Price search engines could either be ignored of fed a generic come-on price that changes when the buyer actually hits the retailer's page.
The dynamic pricing ability of the web has the potential to revolutionize pricing and raise the margins on products (as well lowering them).
Analytics, coupled with near instant data availability, give you the ability to gain real time insight into what's happening in the marketplace.
More demand - jack up price until demand drops off, then drop it again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417944</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1260617520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's many simple cures for this one as a mass market thing - vanity for one. Everybody thinks they're above average important and a lot of customers will be insulted that they're not deemed important enough. A lot of people will feel ripped off for having to pay more than the next guy for "no reason" in their opinion, I remember amazon played with this a little while but quickly stopped. There's the easy possibility for arbitrage, if a "trendy" friend of mine doesn't want something but I do, I can setup it up so he buys it at reduced price, I get it and we split the profits. I think a set of dependent PQ-curves should cover this nicely, you have a PQ for leaders and a PQ curve for followers that is a function of number of leaders buying. Then you optimize for the marginal unit where your marginal losses for leaders equals your marginal profits for the followers. It gets more complicated with many tiers but I don't see a real problem modeling it and nothing that'll break much of typical economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's many simple cures for this one as a mass market thing - vanity for one .
Everybody thinks they 're above average important and a lot of customers will be insulted that they 're not deemed important enough .
A lot of people will feel ripped off for having to pay more than the next guy for " no reason " in their opinion , I remember amazon played with this a little while but quickly stopped .
There 's the easy possibility for arbitrage , if a " trendy " friend of mine does n't want something but I do , I can setup it up so he buys it at reduced price , I get it and we split the profits .
I think a set of dependent PQ-curves should cover this nicely , you have a PQ for leaders and a PQ curve for followers that is a function of number of leaders buying .
Then you optimize for the marginal unit where your marginal losses for leaders equals your marginal profits for the followers .
It gets more complicated with many tiers but I do n't see a real problem modeling it and nothing that 'll break much of typical economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's many simple cures for this one as a mass market thing - vanity for one.
Everybody thinks they're above average important and a lot of customers will be insulted that they're not deemed important enough.
A lot of people will feel ripped off for having to pay more than the next guy for "no reason" in their opinion, I remember amazon played with this a little while but quickly stopped.
There's the easy possibility for arbitrage, if a "trendy" friend of mine doesn't want something but I do, I can setup it up so he buys it at reduced price, I get it and we split the profits.
I think a set of dependent PQ-curves should cover this nicely, you have a PQ for leaders and a PQ curve for followers that is a function of number of leaders buying.
Then you optimize for the marginal unit where your marginal losses for leaders equals your marginal profits for the followers.
It gets more complicated with many tiers but I don't see a real problem modeling it and nothing that'll break much of typical economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421916</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Paradyme</author>
	<datestamp>1260709560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When Microsoft starts to emulate Mafia Wars to entice people random-invite, I start getting worried</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Microsoft starts to emulate Mafia Wars to entice people random-invite , I start getting worried</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Microsoft starts to emulate Mafia Wars to entice people random-invite, I start getting worried</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419840</id>
	<title>Re:New Business Model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260638340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a greedy dick move, no doubt. I said awhile back I was going to sell my unopened copy of Windows 7, and this cinches it. I do foresee people selling influential social networking accounts similar to online gold mining to get the better deals... I think the market will reject this overall in one way or another, but then again Microsoft will figure out another angle. Back and forth, Microsoft will win eventually, until people wake the fuck up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a greedy dick move , no doubt .
I said awhile back I was going to sell my unopened copy of Windows 7 , and this cinches it .
I do foresee people selling influential social networking accounts similar to online gold mining to get the better deals... I think the market will reject this overall in one way or another , but then again Microsoft will figure out another angle .
Back and forth , Microsoft will win eventually , until people wake the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a greedy dick move, no doubt.
I said awhile back I was going to sell my unopened copy of Windows 7, and this cinches it.
I do foresee people selling influential social networking accounts similar to online gold mining to get the better deals... I think the market will reject this overall in one way or another, but then again Microsoft will figure out another angle.
Back and forth, Microsoft will win eventually, until people wake the fuck up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418578</id>
	<title>Re:The commercialization of friendship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260624060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It completely devalues the entire concept of friendship,</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, it does the exact opposite...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It completely devalues the entire concept of friendship,Actually , it does the exact opposite.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It completely devalues the entire concept of friendship,Actually, it does the exact opposite...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417626</id>
	<title>Perfect.</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1260615480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now nobody else can do it. Can I have my $150 Photoshop now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now nobody else can do it .
Can I have my $ 150 Photoshop now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now nobody else can do it.
Can I have my $150 Photoshop now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30440066</id>
	<title>Microsoft Invents Price-Gouging the Least Influent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260809460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Microsoft Invents Price-Gouging the Least Influential</p><p>Coming soon assclown theodp invents summary proper sentence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Microsoft Invents Price-Gouging the Least InfluentialComing soon assclown theodp invents summary proper sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Microsoft Invents Price-Gouging the Least InfluentialComing soon assclown theodp invents summary proper sentence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417978</id>
	<title>Re:Should fail due to prior art.</title>
	<author>Zadaz</author>
	<datestamp>1260618060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like exactly what happens when I go out to eat:</p><p>When I go out to eat at a new restaurant I get regular service and pay 100\%.</p><p>When I go to eat as a restaurant I'm a regular at I get good service and pay 90\%.</p><p>When I go to a restaurant with a friend who owns a well regarded restaurant I get amazing service and pay \%50.</p><p>When I got to a restaurant with the staff of a popular TV cooking show, the owners and chefs come out from the back and do gymnastics and we eat for free.</p><p>Heck, this is already applied to software.  Do you think game reviewers pay for their review copies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like exactly what happens when I go out to eat : When I go out to eat at a new restaurant I get regular service and pay 100 \ % .When I go to eat as a restaurant I 'm a regular at I get good service and pay 90 \ % .When I go to a restaurant with a friend who owns a well regarded restaurant I get amazing service and pay \ % 50.When I got to a restaurant with the staff of a popular TV cooking show , the owners and chefs come out from the back and do gymnastics and we eat for free.Heck , this is already applied to software .
Do you think game reviewers pay for their review copies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like exactly what happens when I go out to eat:When I go out to eat at a new restaurant I get regular service and pay 100\%.When I go to eat as a restaurant I'm a regular at I get good service and pay 90\%.When I go to a restaurant with a friend who owns a well regarded restaurant I get amazing service and pay \%50.When I got to a restaurant with the staff of a popular TV cooking show, the owners and chefs come out from the back and do gymnastics and we eat for free.Heck, this is already applied to software.
Do you think game reviewers pay for their review copies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418840</id>
	<title>Prior art...</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1260627720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inner city grocery and rat-hole rent costs costs vs suburban super markets and low interest mortgages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inner city grocery and rat-hole rent costs costs vs suburban super markets and low interest mortgages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inner city grocery and rat-hole rent costs costs vs suburban super markets and low interest mortgages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418716</id>
	<title>Re:How is this any different than now?</title>
	<author>Sowelu</author>
	<datestamp>1260626220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank god you actually bothered to look at the article before posting.  Slashdot needs more people like you, it really does.  Why are you only modded +3?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank god you actually bothered to look at the article before posting .
Slashdot needs more people like you , it really does .
Why are you only modded + 3 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank god you actually bothered to look at the article before posting.
Slashdot needs more people like you, it really does.
Why are you only modded +3?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421672</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>otter42</author>
	<datestamp>1260704940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're kidding right?  This is the <b>epitome</b> of a free market. Charge the price that the market will bear. The supply-demand curve is the most basic of tools that economists use to express their ideas to laymen. In fact, economists would like to see every person be charged exactly the price they think the item is worth. This reduces prices for some and raises for others.</p><p>Secondly, prices ARE widely available, it's just that the prices you see won't be the ones I see. I admit this will cause macro-economisists analyst a certain amount of headache, but you as a consumer will still be able to find 100 sites that sell your item. And you will choose the one that is cheapest. And then you will decide if this price is the right price for you.</p><p>I call this "spreadsheet economics". With the advent of very sophisticated control and observation models, businesses can now gage the effect of each individual action against their bottom line. This leads them to do things that would normally seem insane from a customer-service standpoint. Witness RyanAir implementing plans to charge for bathroom usage on aircraft, Apple refusing to repair all smokers computers because of tar build-up, or Best Buy firing customers. They already know how much the bad press will cost them vs. how much they will save/earn based on a new policy.</p><p>With spreadsheet economics, one can now see which markets will bear which prices, and don't be surprised if you turn out to be a market unto yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're kidding right ?
This is the epitome of a free market .
Charge the price that the market will bear .
The supply-demand curve is the most basic of tools that economists use to express their ideas to laymen .
In fact , economists would like to see every person be charged exactly the price they think the item is worth .
This reduces prices for some and raises for others.Secondly , prices ARE widely available , it 's just that the prices you see wo n't be the ones I see .
I admit this will cause macro-economisists analyst a certain amount of headache , but you as a consumer will still be able to find 100 sites that sell your item .
And you will choose the one that is cheapest .
And then you will decide if this price is the right price for you.I call this " spreadsheet economics " .
With the advent of very sophisticated control and observation models , businesses can now gage the effect of each individual action against their bottom line .
This leads them to do things that would normally seem insane from a customer-service standpoint .
Witness RyanAir implementing plans to charge for bathroom usage on aircraft , Apple refusing to repair all smokers computers because of tar build-up , or Best Buy firing customers .
They already know how much the bad press will cost them vs. how much they will save/earn based on a new policy.With spreadsheet economics , one can now see which markets will bear which prices , and do n't be surprised if you turn out to be a market unto yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're kidding right?
This is the epitome of a free market.
Charge the price that the market will bear.
The supply-demand curve is the most basic of tools that economists use to express their ideas to laymen.
In fact, economists would like to see every person be charged exactly the price they think the item is worth.
This reduces prices for some and raises for others.Secondly, prices ARE widely available, it's just that the prices you see won't be the ones I see.
I admit this will cause macro-economisists analyst a certain amount of headache, but you as a consumer will still be able to find 100 sites that sell your item.
And you will choose the one that is cheapest.
And then you will decide if this price is the right price for you.I call this "spreadsheet economics".
With the advent of very sophisticated control and observation models, businesses can now gage the effect of each individual action against their bottom line.
This leads them to do things that would normally seem insane from a customer-service standpoint.
Witness RyanAir implementing plans to charge for bathroom usage on aircraft, Apple refusing to repair all smokers computers because of tar build-up, or Best Buy firing customers.
They already know how much the bad press will cost them vs. how much they will save/earn based on a new policy.With spreadsheet economics, one can now see which markets will bear which prices, and don't be surprised if you turn out to be a market unto yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417918</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>ISoldat53</author>
	<datestamp>1260617400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why reviews on Angie's list, CNET, Slashdot, Amazon and the like are getting more important. When you make a report on something like Angie's List you can influence many more people than your lowly ranking as an end-user would normally indicate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why reviews on Angie 's list , CNET , Slashdot , Amazon and the like are getting more important .
When you make a report on something like Angie 's List you can influence many more people than your lowly ranking as an end-user would normally indicate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why reviews on Angie's list, CNET, Slashdot, Amazon and the like are getting more important.
When you make a report on something like Angie's List you can influence many more people than your lowly ranking as an end-user would normally indicate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419056</id>
	<title>The problem is</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1260631020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the Internet, everyone has a voice. Everyone is not equal, but everyone has a voice. There are so many places, forums on sites like this being the best example, where people can express themselves that even if you are completely non-influential online in general terms, your voice can be heard by millions. Also someone who isn't influential can suddenly become influential. My website is not influential, it isn't intended to be, few people come to it unless they are after something in particular on there. However, if I put something on it, and Slashdot links to it, suddenly it is influential for that item. My voice went from meaning little to meaning lots.</p><p>So the problem you get is that if there is differential pricing going on, people will quickly find out. If it is something like you've been sending out discount codes to preferred customers that reduce the price, those codes will quickly be posted all over the Internet. If it is something like you give people a great deal via their account and tell them to tell their friends, well then quickly it becomes apparent that not everyone gets a great deal as they talk about it, and this will get posted on the net.</p><p>It is just the sort of thing I don't see working. There is so much content submitted by random people (like our comments), so many forums for expressing yourself, and the potential for a single post to become of major international note. You can't control that sort of thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the Internet , everyone has a voice .
Everyone is not equal , but everyone has a voice .
There are so many places , forums on sites like this being the best example , where people can express themselves that even if you are completely non-influential online in general terms , your voice can be heard by millions .
Also someone who is n't influential can suddenly become influential .
My website is not influential , it is n't intended to be , few people come to it unless they are after something in particular on there .
However , if I put something on it , and Slashdot links to it , suddenly it is influential for that item .
My voice went from meaning little to meaning lots.So the problem you get is that if there is differential pricing going on , people will quickly find out .
If it is something like you 've been sending out discount codes to preferred customers that reduce the price , those codes will quickly be posted all over the Internet .
If it is something like you give people a great deal via their account and tell them to tell their friends , well then quickly it becomes apparent that not everyone gets a great deal as they talk about it , and this will get posted on the net.It is just the sort of thing I do n't see working .
There is so much content submitted by random people ( like our comments ) , so many forums for expressing yourself , and the potential for a single post to become of major international note .
You ca n't control that sort of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the Internet, everyone has a voice.
Everyone is not equal, but everyone has a voice.
There are so many places, forums on sites like this being the best example, where people can express themselves that even if you are completely non-influential online in general terms, your voice can be heard by millions.
Also someone who isn't influential can suddenly become influential.
My website is not influential, it isn't intended to be, few people come to it unless they are after something in particular on there.
However, if I put something on it, and Slashdot links to it, suddenly it is influential for that item.
My voice went from meaning little to meaning lots.So the problem you get is that if there is differential pricing going on, people will quickly find out.
If it is something like you've been sending out discount codes to preferred customers that reduce the price, those codes will quickly be posted all over the Internet.
If it is something like you give people a great deal via their account and tell them to tell their friends, well then quickly it becomes apparent that not everyone gets a great deal as they talk about it, and this will get posted on the net.It is just the sort of thing I don't see working.
There is so much content submitted by random people (like our comments), so many forums for expressing yourself, and the potential for a single post to become of major international note.
You can't control that sort of thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418174</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>KarmaMB84</author>
	<datestamp>1260619680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea is giving discounts or freebies to people who will tell others about your product. Right now they might just give it away for free to reviewers with a large audience. What they'd like to do is identify people they could sell the product to for half price or some other fraction while getting a similar effect. They don't want to give it to them for free if they could get them to pay something for it while still telling all their friends.<br> <br>
The article title could've used some work IMO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is giving discounts or freebies to people who will tell others about your product .
Right now they might just give it away for free to reviewers with a large audience .
What they 'd like to do is identify people they could sell the product to for half price or some other fraction while getting a similar effect .
They do n't want to give it to them for free if they could get them to pay something for it while still telling all their friends .
The article title could 've used some work IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea is giving discounts or freebies to people who will tell others about your product.
Right now they might just give it away for free to reviewers with a large audience.
What they'd like to do is identify people they could sell the product to for half price or some other fraction while getting a similar effect.
They don't want to give it to them for free if they could get them to pay something for it while still telling all their friends.
The article title could've used some work IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417872</id>
	<title>Re:Linux users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260617040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering how many Linux users would actually *be* on a social network, seeing as even a simple thing like Flash is so hard for them to get working ?</p><p>Or maybe MS is doing some fancy data-mining.</p><p>1. Bought a computer ?<br>2. Asked for a refund on the preinstalled copy of Windows ?<br>3. No profile found on Facebook ?<br>4. ???<br>5. Linux User Profit !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering how many Linux users would actually * be * on a social network , seeing as even a simple thing like Flash is so hard for them to get working ? Or maybe MS is doing some fancy data-mining.1 .
Bought a computer ? 2 .
Asked for a refund on the preinstalled copy of Windows ? 3 .
No profile found on Facebook ? 4 .
? ? ? 5. Linux User Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering how many Linux users would actually *be* on a social network, seeing as even a simple thing like Flash is so hard for them to get working ?Or maybe MS is doing some fancy data-mining.1.
Bought a computer ?2.
Asked for a refund on the preinstalled copy of Windows ?3.
No profile found on Facebook ?4.
???5. Linux User Profit !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418014</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>shawnap</author>
	<datestamp>1260618360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Bill Gates also used to think his MSN proprietary network paywall would have more success than any silly Internet thingie. What he fails to realize is than in an Internet era, where price information travels rapidly, prices converge towards fixed prices. Not this drivel.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It is not the case that the increasing prevalence of the internet unambiguously hinders price discrimination; on the contrary, it makes some forms of discrimination, like those that rely on information asymmetry, more difficult and some, like loyalty systems and the like, easier.<br>Consider the case of Amazon. One one hand, the ability of the customer to buy books online for the same price from any location makes geographic price discrimination by the brick-and-mortar firms much more difficult. Amazon's Kindle, however, makes books relatively non-transferable, making sophisticated complete price discrimination feasible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates also used to think his MSN proprietary network paywall would have more success than any silly Internet thingie .
What he fails to realize is than in an Internet era , where price information travels rapidly , prices converge towards fixed prices .
Not this drivel .
It is not the case that the increasing prevalence of the internet unambiguously hinders price discrimination ; on the contrary , it makes some forms of discrimination , like those that rely on information asymmetry , more difficult and some , like loyalty systems and the like , easier.Consider the case of Amazon .
One one hand , the ability of the customer to buy books online for the same price from any location makes geographic price discrimination by the brick-and-mortar firms much more difficult .
Amazon 's Kindle , however , makes books relatively non-transferable , making sophisticated complete price discrimination feasible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates also used to think his MSN proprietary network paywall would have more success than any silly Internet thingie.
What he fails to realize is than in an Internet era, where price information travels rapidly, prices converge towards fixed prices.
Not this drivel.
It is not the case that the increasing prevalence of the internet unambiguously hinders price discrimination; on the contrary, it makes some forms of discrimination, like those that rely on information asymmetry, more difficult and some, like loyalty systems and the like, easier.Consider the case of Amazon.
One one hand, the ability of the customer to buy books online for the same price from any location makes geographic price discrimination by the brick-and-mortar firms much more difficult.
Amazon's Kindle, however, makes books relatively non-transferable, making sophisticated complete price discrimination feasible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418726</id>
	<title>There is prior art in the software industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260626340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Influential music producers get all the high end studio software for free, much like how influential artists get all their instruments for free, and influential sports-people get their equipment and clothing for free - in return for an endorsement. It's just sponsorship by another name, basically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Influential music producers get all the high end studio software for free , much like how influential artists get all their instruments for free , and influential sports-people get their equipment and clothing for free - in return for an endorsement .
It 's just sponsorship by another name , basically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Influential music producers get all the high end studio software for free, much like how influential artists get all their instruments for free, and influential sports-people get their equipment and clothing for free - in return for an endorsement.
It's just sponsorship by another name, basically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418806</id>
	<title>Prior art</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1260627360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.packtpub.com/" title="packtpub.com">Packt Publishing</a> [packtpub.com] (and probably other publishing houses) already do this by asking reviewers on famous product-related sites to review in exchange for a free copy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Packt Publishing [ packtpub.com ] ( and probably other publishing houses ) already do this by asking reviewers on famous product-related sites to review in exchange for a free copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Packt Publishing [packtpub.com] (and probably other publishing houses) already do this by asking reviewers on famous product-related sites to review in exchange for a free copy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417572</id>
	<title>Re:Linux users</title>
	<author>quadelirus</author>
	<datestamp>1260615120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not a challenge, just a clarification question: how exactly do linux users factor into this discussion? It seems to be about using information gleaned from social networks to adjust prices in order to maximize product adoption.

Also, I wouldn't be so certain this wouldn't be popular. If everyone in your social group wants to be like person X and MS can determine this and give something to person X for free that will cost you and the rest of the group $10, I'm not sure so many people would abstain as a protest. Or at least not more than the gain in revenue seen by the scheme.

I think of it like this: when the iPhone came out all the geeks bought them, and then convinced everyone else to buy them. Because of the cult of Apple it wasn't too hard to get tons of geeks to get them and show everyone else how cool it is. On the other hand not as many people were buying Zunes and convincing their non-geeky friends to buy them. What if MS was able to determine the people who had the most influence on their social group's technology buying habits and sent them all free Zunes? It seems like if this could be done accurately it would be an incredibly effective marketing ploy (of course, that is a big IF).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a challenge , just a clarification question : how exactly do linux users factor into this discussion ?
It seems to be about using information gleaned from social networks to adjust prices in order to maximize product adoption .
Also , I would n't be so certain this would n't be popular .
If everyone in your social group wants to be like person X and MS can determine this and give something to person X for free that will cost you and the rest of the group $ 10 , I 'm not sure so many people would abstain as a protest .
Or at least not more than the gain in revenue seen by the scheme .
I think of it like this : when the iPhone came out all the geeks bought them , and then convinced everyone else to buy them .
Because of the cult of Apple it was n't too hard to get tons of geeks to get them and show everyone else how cool it is .
On the other hand not as many people were buying Zunes and convincing their non-geeky friends to buy them .
What if MS was able to determine the people who had the most influence on their social group 's technology buying habits and sent them all free Zunes ?
It seems like if this could be done accurately it would be an incredibly effective marketing ploy ( of course , that is a big IF ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a challenge, just a clarification question: how exactly do linux users factor into this discussion?
It seems to be about using information gleaned from social networks to adjust prices in order to maximize product adoption.
Also, I wouldn't be so certain this wouldn't be popular.
If everyone in your social group wants to be like person X and MS can determine this and give something to person X for free that will cost you and the rest of the group $10, I'm not sure so many people would abstain as a protest.
Or at least not more than the gain in revenue seen by the scheme.
I think of it like this: when the iPhone came out all the geeks bought them, and then convinced everyone else to buy them.
Because of the cult of Apple it wasn't too hard to get tons of geeks to get them and show everyone else how cool it is.
On the other hand not as many people were buying Zunes and convincing their non-geeky friends to buy them.
What if MS was able to determine the people who had the most influence on their social group's technology buying habits and sent them all free Zunes?
It seems like if this could be done accurately it would be an incredibly effective marketing ploy (of course, that is a big IF).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417826</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260616740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work.</p></div><p>Yes, they are. Surprised to see a direct attack on the free market by a convicted monopolist?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Nobody, and I'm serious on that, not the most convinced communist, not the most radical islamic fundamentalist, hates a free market as much as major corporations. Pretty much everything that determines a free market is an obstacle towards their ultimate goal: Unlimited, guaranteed profit.</p><p>I'd have thought after the financial crises more people would've noticed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work.Yes , they are .
Surprised to see a direct attack on the free market by a convicted monopolist ?
; - ) Nobody , and I 'm serious on that , not the most convinced communist , not the most radical islamic fundamentalist , hates a free market as much as major corporations .
Pretty much everything that determines a free market is an obstacle towards their ultimate goal : Unlimited , guaranteed profit.I 'd have thought after the financial crises more people would 've noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work.Yes, they are.
Surprised to see a direct attack on the free market by a convicted monopolist?
;-)Nobody, and I'm serious on that, not the most convinced communist, not the most radical islamic fundamentalist, hates a free market as much as major corporations.
Pretty much everything that determines a free market is an obstacle towards their ultimate goal: Unlimited, guaranteed profit.I'd have thought after the financial crises more people would've noticed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417734</id>
	<title>False</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1260616080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting.  It seems to me celebrities still get all sorts of things for free, and it hasn't lowered the price the least bit for us "common folk".  The internet does absolutely NOTHING to force companies to sell a product for the same price to everyone.  If you think that you've either never gotten a deal, or you're living in a hole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
It seems to me celebrities still get all sorts of things for free , and it has n't lowered the price the least bit for us " common folk " .
The internet does absolutely NOTHING to force companies to sell a product for the same price to everyone .
If you think that you 've either never gotten a deal , or you 're living in a hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
It seems to me celebrities still get all sorts of things for free, and it hasn't lowered the price the least bit for us "common folk".
The internet does absolutely NOTHING to force companies to sell a product for the same price to everyone.
If you think that you've either never gotten a deal, or you're living in a hole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418268</id>
	<title>Influentials!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260620640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Influentials, influentials, influentials!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Influentials , influentials , influentials !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Influentials, influentials, influentials!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418874</id>
	<title>Regressive Pricing for the Poor</title>
	<author>hedgemage</author>
	<datestamp>1260628140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who's influential?  The rich. <br>
Who's not?  The poor. <br>
In American capitalism, we are told that we can vote with our dollars to determine an organization's success or failure.  Apparently, Microsoft feels that a poll tax is necessary.<br>
Just as large corporations can use their money to exert disproportionate influence on the local or national political scene, now in marketing decisions the influence of a rich person will hold more weight than the 'common man' who makes up the majority of the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's influential ?
The rich .
Who 's not ?
The poor .
In American capitalism , we are told that we can vote with our dollars to determine an organization 's success or failure .
Apparently , Microsoft feels that a poll tax is necessary .
Just as large corporations can use their money to exert disproportionate influence on the local or national political scene , now in marketing decisions the influence of a rich person will hold more weight than the 'common man ' who makes up the majority of the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's influential?
The rich.
Who's not?
The poor.
In American capitalism, we are told that we can vote with our dollars to determine an organization's success or failure.
Apparently, Microsoft feels that a poll tax is necessary.
Just as large corporations can use their money to exert disproportionate influence on the local or national political scene, now in marketing decisions the influence of a rich person will hold more weight than the 'common man' who makes up the majority of the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418648</id>
	<title>Prior Art</title>
	<author>prograde</author>
	<datestamp>1260625380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I cite as prior art every club that charged me a cover fee, while letting the cool, beautiful people skip the line and get in for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I cite as prior art every club that charged me a cover fee , while letting the cool , beautiful people skip the line and get in for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cite as prior art every club that charged me a cover fee, while letting the cool, beautiful people skip the line and get in for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417480</id>
	<title>Linux users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260614400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another attempt by MSFT to influence Linux users.  By charging them triple for the same product.</p><p>I can see this going over like a lead filled ballon.  While costs for goods may rise and drive up prices, prices themselves have a way of going down with volume.  Of course in a market (software) that doesn't produce physical products pricing is artificial anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another attempt by MSFT to influence Linux users .
By charging them triple for the same product.I can see this going over like a lead filled ballon .
While costs for goods may rise and drive up prices , prices themselves have a way of going down with volume .
Of course in a market ( software ) that does n't produce physical products pricing is artificial anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another attempt by MSFT to influence Linux users.
By charging them triple for the same product.I can see this going over like a lead filled ballon.
While costs for goods may rise and drive up prices, prices themselves have a way of going down with volume.
Of course in a market (software) that doesn't produce physical products pricing is artificial anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421038</id>
	<title>Re:Game theory</title>
	<author>Petrushka</author>
	<datestamp>1260737160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So now MS is patenting Game theory.
What netx, algebra ?</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130" title="theonion.com">Ones and zeroes</a> [theonion.com], obviously.</p><p>(Incidentally, notice the date -- getting on for twelve years old now, and still appropriate.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now MS is patenting Game theory .
What netx , algebra ?
Ones and zeroes [ theonion.com ] , obviously .
( Incidentally , notice the date -- getting on for twelve years old now , and still appropriate .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now MS is patenting Game theory.
What netx, algebra ?
Ones and zeroes [theonion.com], obviously.
(Incidentally, notice the date -- getting on for twelve years old now, and still appropriate.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418124</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1260619320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides, in some cases services like steam already have the same effect, but without the patent. I'd argue that your influence correlates to how much you watch these places for good deals. The more time you spend, the more likely you are to tell people about it. Thus, you have influence and lower prices, and it occurred naturally without a patent.</p><p>Take a look at this series of events:</p><p>-I see $5 game. (80\% off)<br>-I purchase $5 game.<br>-I tell friends $5 game is good.<br>-Friends either buy at $5 or buy at full price because they're too slow. (or wait for another lesser sale)</p><p>Of course...</p><p>-I FRAPS video from game.<br>-I put video up on Youtube.<br>-People comment that $5 game is good and they enjoyed it.<br>-People comment that they didn't know [$SERVICE] had such good prices.<br>-Video gets taken down by DMCA because someone was playing crappy music on Ventrilo while being recorded.<br>-I buy new $5 game...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , in some cases services like steam already have the same effect , but without the patent .
I 'd argue that your influence correlates to how much you watch these places for good deals .
The more time you spend , the more likely you are to tell people about it .
Thus , you have influence and lower prices , and it occurred naturally without a patent.Take a look at this series of events : -I see $ 5 game .
( 80 \ % off ) -I purchase $ 5 game.-I tell friends $ 5 game is good.-Friends either buy at $ 5 or buy at full price because they 're too slow .
( or wait for another lesser sale ) Of course...-I FRAPS video from game.-I put video up on Youtube.-People comment that $ 5 game is good and they enjoyed it.-People comment that they did n't know [ $ SERVICE ] had such good prices.-Video gets taken down by DMCA because someone was playing crappy music on Ventrilo while being recorded.-I buy new $ 5 game.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, in some cases services like steam already have the same effect, but without the patent.
I'd argue that your influence correlates to how much you watch these places for good deals.
The more time you spend, the more likely you are to tell people about it.
Thus, you have influence and lower prices, and it occurred naturally without a patent.Take a look at this series of events:-I see $5 game.
(80\% off)-I purchase $5 game.-I tell friends $5 game is good.-Friends either buy at $5 or buy at full price because they're too slow.
(or wait for another lesser sale)Of course...-I FRAPS video from game.-I put video up on Youtube.-People comment that $5 game is good and they enjoyed it.-People comment that they didn't know [$SERVICE] had such good prices.-Video gets taken down by DMCA because someone was playing crappy music on Ventrilo while being recorded.-I buy new $5 game...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417640</id>
	<title>You know what this means</title>
	<author>muncadunc</author>
	<datestamp>1260615540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>People will find ways to game this system, just like people gamed search engines with Google bombs.
<br>If you think blog spam is bad right now, just you wait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People will find ways to game this system , just like people gamed search engines with Google bombs .
If you think blog spam is bad right now , just you wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People will find ways to game this system, just like people gamed search engines with Google bombs.
If you think blog spam is bad right now, just you wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420006</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anci3nt of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1260639540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Method Patent or no, it won't overcome the prior art - the Tax department has been doing this for years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Method Patent or no , it wo n't overcome the prior art - the Tax department has been doing this for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Method Patent or no, it won't overcome the prior art - the Tax department has been doing this for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580</id>
	<title>The commercialization of friendship</title>
	<author>Fractal Dice</author>
	<datestamp>1260615180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Influence mapping scares me deeply.  It completely devalues the entire concept of friendship, turning every relationship into a marketing channel, every person into a spambot zombie hoping for a discount from sellers or a better performance appraisal at work.</p><p>I would love to see the practice outlawed, but data mining is becoming so pervasive I don't know how you prove its even happening without catching differential pricing caught in the act.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Influence mapping scares me deeply .
It completely devalues the entire concept of friendship , turning every relationship into a marketing channel , every person into a spambot zombie hoping for a discount from sellers or a better performance appraisal at work.I would love to see the practice outlawed , but data mining is becoming so pervasive I do n't know how you prove its even happening without catching differential pricing caught in the act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Influence mapping scares me deeply.
It completely devalues the entire concept of friendship, turning every relationship into a marketing channel, every person into a spambot zombie hoping for a discount from sellers or a better performance appraisal at work.I would love to see the practice outlawed, but data mining is becoming so pervasive I don't know how you prove its even happening without catching differential pricing caught in the act.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30423414</id>
	<title>wait a minute...</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1260727800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't that some sort of pyramid scheme?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that some sort of pyramid scheme ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that some sort of pyramid scheme?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418032</id>
	<title>Way too much prior art</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1260618540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Famous people and/or well-connected people
have been getting "gifts" from companies for ages.
Some of the very first wheels were probably given
to the chief with the big spear, while the guy in
the cave next door had to give saber-tooth cat pelts
in exchange.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Famous people and/or well-connected people have been getting " gifts " from companies for ages .
Some of the very first wheels were probably given to the chief with the big spear , while the guy in the cave next door had to give saber-tooth cat pelts in exchange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Famous people and/or well-connected people
have been getting "gifts" from companies for ages.
Some of the very first wheels were probably given
to the chief with the big spear, while the guy in
the cave next door had to give saber-tooth cat pelts
in exchange.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417660</id>
	<title>Game theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260615660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So now MS is patenting Game theory.<br>What netx, algebra ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now MS is patenting Game theory.What netx , algebra ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now MS is patenting Game theory.What netx, algebra ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420778</id>
	<title>Re:New Business Model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260646860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless first sale has been undermined (like the large corporations have been working on for years). Then you can't resell their items and they retain control of the marketplace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless first sale has been undermined ( like the large corporations have been working on for years ) .
Then you ca n't resell their items and they retain control of the marketplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless first sale has been undermined (like the large corporations have been working on for years).
Then you can't resell their items and they retain control of the marketplace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419788</id>
	<title>The monopolist reveals its true nature</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1260637920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a free market like what the USA might still have - this kind of pricing discrimination is pure poison. Our system is strong enough to withstand the individual influence peddlers and shills - but if it becomes common commercial practice it will be a disaster.<p>
This type of anti-competitive scam has been addressed by the law before; look up "pricing discrimination" or "redlining" for some background. The best possible result is that those with "influence" (read: money or power) buy cheap and can resell to the ESL crowd for slightly under their higher market price. Very handy little business opportunity and it transfers even more money to the pockets of those with "influence". A more likely result is that Mr. Important gets all he needs and Mr. Common Citizen can't get the product at all.</p><p>
Microsoft operates by selling discs and boxes for hundreds of dollars. Their supply of product is essentially unlimited so they don't have to worry about the issues that businesses operating in the real world do. What they propose in this patent may be useful for their little piece of the market but it's bad in most cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a free market like what the USA might still have - this kind of pricing discrimination is pure poison .
Our system is strong enough to withstand the individual influence peddlers and shills - but if it becomes common commercial practice it will be a disaster .
This type of anti-competitive scam has been addressed by the law before ; look up " pricing discrimination " or " redlining " for some background .
The best possible result is that those with " influence " ( read : money or power ) buy cheap and can resell to the ESL crowd for slightly under their higher market price .
Very handy little business opportunity and it transfers even more money to the pockets of those with " influence " .
A more likely result is that Mr. Important gets all he needs and Mr. Common Citizen ca n't get the product at all .
Microsoft operates by selling discs and boxes for hundreds of dollars .
Their supply of product is essentially unlimited so they do n't have to worry about the issues that businesses operating in the real world do .
What they propose in this patent may be useful for their little piece of the market but it 's bad in most cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a free market like what the USA might still have - this kind of pricing discrimination is pure poison.
Our system is strong enough to withstand the individual influence peddlers and shills - but if it becomes common commercial practice it will be a disaster.
This type of anti-competitive scam has been addressed by the law before; look up "pricing discrimination" or "redlining" for some background.
The best possible result is that those with "influence" (read: money or power) buy cheap and can resell to the ESL crowd for slightly under their higher market price.
Very handy little business opportunity and it transfers even more money to the pockets of those with "influence".
A more likely result is that Mr. Important gets all he needs and Mr. Common Citizen can't get the product at all.
Microsoft operates by selling discs and boxes for hundreds of dollars.
Their supply of product is essentially unlimited so they don't have to worry about the issues that businesses operating in the real world do.
What they propose in this patent may be useful for their little piece of the market but it's bad in most cases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418822</id>
	<title>There's only 1 evil monopoly out there: GOVERNMENT</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1260627540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything else, including Microsoft, is subject to free market competition.</p><p>They should be free to charge whatever the market will bare - which, in absence of government's alleged right to initiate aggression over copying 1's and 0's, would not be very much, but Microsoft could still make decent profits by bundling hardware, business contracts, services, certifications, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything else , including Microsoft , is subject to free market competition.They should be free to charge whatever the market will bare - which , in absence of government 's alleged right to initiate aggression over copying 1 's and 0 's , would not be very much , but Microsoft could still make decent profits by bundling hardware , business contracts , services , certifications , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything else, including Microsoft, is subject to free market competition.They should be free to charge whatever the market will bare - which, in absence of government's alleged right to initiate aggression over copying 1's and 0's, would not be very much, but Microsoft could still make decent profits by bundling hardware, business contracts, services, certifications, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417614</id>
	<title>Will They Ever Get to Try This?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260615360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This can't be legal, especially under any sane consumer protection laws. I really can't see them ever getting to try this, especially in the EU, where for anything Microsoft do, there's a team of lawyers waiting for the chance to fine them for it.</p><p>On the other hand though, sometimes I like to think that Microsoft go around patenting bad ideas to protect them, not for their own use, but to stop someone really malignant from using them in the real world. How on earth does one determine influence anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ca n't be legal , especially under any sane consumer protection laws .
I really ca n't see them ever getting to try this , especially in the EU , where for anything Microsoft do , there 's a team of lawyers waiting for the chance to fine them for it.On the other hand though , sometimes I like to think that Microsoft go around patenting bad ideas to protect them , not for their own use , but to stop someone really malignant from using them in the real world .
How on earth does one determine influence anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can't be legal, especially under any sane consumer protection laws.
I really can't see them ever getting to try this, especially in the EU, where for anything Microsoft do, there's a team of lawyers waiting for the chance to fine them for it.On the other hand though, sometimes I like to think that Microsoft go around patenting bad ideas to protect them, not for their own use, but to stop someone really malignant from using them in the real world.
How on earth does one determine influence anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417830</id>
	<title>Paying for astroturfing</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1260616800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFP: "The technique determines a price to offer the product to individual potential buyers that considers both influence of the individual potential buyer..."</p><p>

Microsoft wants to pay its customers to astroturf for it. Where I come from that's called a kickback, bribe, or politics as usual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFP : " The technique determines a price to offer the product to individual potential buyers that considers both influence of the individual potential buyer... " Microsoft wants to pay its customers to astroturf for it .
Where I come from that 's called a kickback , bribe , or politics as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFP: "The technique determines a price to offer the product to individual potential buyers that considers both influence of the individual potential buyer..."

Microsoft wants to pay its customers to astroturf for it.
Where I come from that's called a kickback, bribe, or politics as usual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418270</id>
	<title>Re:Works for me</title>
	<author>ironicsky</author>
	<datestamp>1260620640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Grand Total of $10.00<br>I had my PC hooked up to my HDTV in the living room loaded with media.<br>it was BYOB, I bought some munchies and pop. People were welcome to screw with my system since there was NOTHING on it other then what I wanted people to see(Brand new build). The rest of the party was having a bonfire drinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Grand Total of $ 10.00I had my PC hooked up to my HDTV in the living room loaded with media.it was BYOB , I bought some munchies and pop .
People were welcome to screw with my system since there was NOTHING on it other then what I wanted people to see ( Brand new build ) .
The rest of the party was having a bonfire drinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grand Total of $10.00I had my PC hooked up to my HDTV in the living room loaded with media.it was BYOB, I bought some munchies and pop.
People were welcome to screw with my system since there was NOTHING on it other then what I wanted people to see(Brand new build).
The rest of the party was having a bonfire drinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419684</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Rayonic</author>
	<datestamp>1260636900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is the most evil plan related to software that I think I've ever heard. Their plan is basically to prey on the weak. Are they going to patent stealing candy from children next?</p></div><p>That seems a little over-dramatic.  Social networks are nothing without good contributors, and this could just be a way of rewarding the most active.  They're adding value to the service, so why shouldn't they get a discount of some sort?</p><p>My question is, what social networks does Microsoft own anyway?  With money involved?  The only one that comes to mind is Xbox Live...</p><p>Come to think of it, some kind of incentive plan integrated into that service might be a good idea.  I'm not sure what they'd reward -- getting friends online?  Hosting game servers?  Or perhaps something new.  It'll certainly be interesting to see.  Xbox Live is pretty much the only Microsoft product that hasn't been totally reactionary in nature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the most evil plan related to software that I think I 've ever heard .
Their plan is basically to prey on the weak .
Are they going to patent stealing candy from children next ? That seems a little over-dramatic .
Social networks are nothing without good contributors , and this could just be a way of rewarding the most active .
They 're adding value to the service , so why should n't they get a discount of some sort ? My question is , what social networks does Microsoft own anyway ?
With money involved ?
The only one that comes to mind is Xbox Live...Come to think of it , some kind of incentive plan integrated into that service might be a good idea .
I 'm not sure what they 'd reward -- getting friends online ?
Hosting game servers ?
Or perhaps something new .
It 'll certainly be interesting to see .
Xbox Live is pretty much the only Microsoft product that has n't been totally reactionary in nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the most evil plan related to software that I think I've ever heard.
Their plan is basically to prey on the weak.
Are they going to patent stealing candy from children next?That seems a little over-dramatic.
Social networks are nothing without good contributors, and this could just be a way of rewarding the most active.
They're adding value to the service, so why shouldn't they get a discount of some sort?My question is, what social networks does Microsoft own anyway?
With money involved?
The only one that comes to mind is Xbox Live...Come to think of it, some kind of incentive plan integrated into that service might be a good idea.
I'm not sure what they'd reward -- getting friends online?
Hosting game servers?
Or perhaps something new.
It'll certainly be interesting to see.
Xbox Live is pretty much the only Microsoft product that hasn't been totally reactionary in nature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418226</id>
	<title>That's just sponsorship/payment.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260620280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this just graduated sponsorhip? I give this guy a free skateboard because he appears in lots of videos, I sell it at the normal price to this guy because he's rubbish on a board. It's not evil to give things cheaply or freely to people who will help you sell your stuff, it's payment in product for being a spokesperson. It's also certainly no more evil just because it's been automated/scripted either - that sounds a lot like a fearful reaction to scaling more than anything. I think if anything is an issue here it might be whether the right to patent the automation of sponsorship/pricing is too generalised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this just graduated sponsorhip ?
I give this guy a free skateboard because he appears in lots of videos , I sell it at the normal price to this guy because he 's rubbish on a board .
It 's not evil to give things cheaply or freely to people who will help you sell your stuff , it 's payment in product for being a spokesperson .
It 's also certainly no more evil just because it 's been automated/scripted either - that sounds a lot like a fearful reaction to scaling more than anything .
I think if anything is an issue here it might be whether the right to patent the automation of sponsorship/pricing is too generalised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this just graduated sponsorhip?
I give this guy a free skateboard because he appears in lots of videos, I sell it at the normal price to this guy because he's rubbish on a board.
It's not evil to give things cheaply or freely to people who will help you sell your stuff, it's payment in product for being a spokesperson.
It's also certainly no more evil just because it's been automated/scripted either - that sounds a lot like a fearful reaction to scaling more than anything.
I think if anything is an issue here it might be whether the right to patent the automation of sponsorship/pricing is too generalised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417716</id>
	<title>If only...</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1260615960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only Microsoft spent half as much time on improving Windows as they spend on this "research".</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only Microsoft spent half as much time on improving Windows as they spend on this " research " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only Microsoft spent half as much time on improving Windows as they spend on this "research".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421150</id>
	<title>Re:Linux users</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1260695700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but you have to really understand what's going on. A program like this is to measure "influence"... so they now have leverage to keep people from publicly switching as they will lose their "influence discount" and have to start over at "retail price" if they want to "come back to the fold". This is about Microsoft not losing share to other players by squeezing the share it's already got. At an enterprise level that could be tens of thousands of dollars if they saw you reducing Windows desktop licenses but wanting to keep some Server and development tools for stuff yet-to-be-switched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but you have to really understand what 's going on .
A program like this is to measure " influence " ... so they now have leverage to keep people from publicly switching as they will lose their " influence discount " and have to start over at " retail price " if they want to " come back to the fold " .
This is about Microsoft not losing share to other players by squeezing the share it 's already got .
At an enterprise level that could be tens of thousands of dollars if they saw you reducing Windows desktop licenses but wanting to keep some Server and development tools for stuff yet-to-be-switched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but you have to really understand what's going on.
A program like this is to measure "influence"... so they now have leverage to keep people from publicly switching as they will lose their "influence discount" and have to start over at "retail price" if they want to "come back to the fold".
This is about Microsoft not losing share to other players by squeezing the share it's already got.
At an enterprise level that could be tens of thousands of dollars if they saw you reducing Windows desktop licenses but wanting to keep some Server and development tools for stuff yet-to-be-switched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417864</id>
	<title>Dear kdawson</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1260617040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>please read your own submissions and maybe they wouldn't have logic fails in the tital and summary, and just might stop sucking so much.<p>
sincerely, the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>please read your own submissions and maybe they would n't have logic fails in the tital and summary , and just might stop sucking so much .
sincerely , the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please read your own submissions and maybe they wouldn't have logic fails in the tital and summary, and just might stop sucking so much.
sincerely, the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418550</id>
	<title>Re:The commercialization of friendship</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1260623820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got my vote. We really have to limit the use of data mining. The improvements in people manipulation based on data mining and psychology shall not be used in marketing methods. However, it will become very complicated to get it outlawed. As the manipulation techniques are also used in politics in favor of the powerful class in our societies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got my vote .
We really have to limit the use of data mining .
The improvements in people manipulation based on data mining and psychology shall not be used in marketing methods .
However , it will become very complicated to get it outlawed .
As the manipulation techniques are also used in politics in favor of the powerful class in our societies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got my vote.
We really have to limit the use of data mining.
The improvements in people manipulation based on data mining and psychology shall not be used in marketing methods.
However, it will become very complicated to get it outlawed.
As the manipulation techniques are also used in politics in favor of the powerful class in our societies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418574</id>
	<title>Amazon's 2000 Experiment With Dynamic Pricing</title>
	<author>theodp</author>
	<datestamp>1260624060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/50153/Customer\_outrage\_prompts\_Amazon\_to\_change\_price\_testing\_policy" title="computerworld.com">Outrage prompts Amazon to Change Price-testing Policy</a> [computerworld.com]: "Last week, Computerworld first reported that Amazon was conducting various price tests in its DVD store that could result in one consumer paying as much as $15 more for the same item as another consumer."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outrage prompts Amazon to Change Price-testing Policy [ computerworld.com ] : " Last week , Computerworld first reported that Amazon was conducting various price tests in its DVD store that could result in one consumer paying as much as $ 15 more for the same item as another consumer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outrage prompts Amazon to Change Price-testing Policy [computerworld.com]: "Last week, Computerworld first reported that Amazon was conducting various price tests in its DVD store that could result in one consumer paying as much as $15 more for the same item as another consumer.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419046</id>
	<title>If I were influencial,</title>
	<author>consumer\_whore</author>
	<datestamp>1260630900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd buy large quantities of their products at a low price and resell them for a small markup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd buy large quantities of their products at a low price and resell them for a small markup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd buy large quantities of their products at a low price and resell them for a small markup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418106</id>
	<title>Re:Already an established business practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260619080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More than an organized version, a formal mathematical expression of said pratice. Promotional prices are obviously low to promote a product, and it should be applied to people who can promote it.</p><p>Another case of patents gone wild.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More than an organized version , a formal mathematical expression of said pratice .
Promotional prices are obviously low to promote a product , and it should be applied to people who can promote it.Another case of patents gone wild .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More than an organized version, a formal mathematical expression of said pratice.
Promotional prices are obviously low to promote a product, and it should be applied to people who can promote it.Another case of patents gone wild.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417622</id>
	<title>Doesn't the FTC ruling mean that...</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1260615420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If you receive a more preferable product for a good or service based on your social network status (or on your blog),  you have to disclose that, <a href="http://ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm" title="ftc.gov" rel="nofollow">according to the FTC</a> [ftc.gov].
</p><p>
You aren't allowed to get a better price based on your influence/following and fail to disclose it.
</p><p>
This type of pricing scheme is dangerous, and might land company executivies in jail, for the attempt to defraud  less-influential people with higher pricing.
</p><p>
However, I expect this could backfire... some of the more influential people will certainly say what price they got.
</p><p>
You can't control this type of information.  There will be a backlash / disillusionment when other people learn that they are getting a different price.
</p><p>
In fact, the "more influential person" may lose influence, when people discover that.
</p><p>
E.g. Getting the better price can have long-term social costs in how other people in your social network view you.
</p><p>
Good Advise vs.  "Sell-out"
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you receive a more preferable product for a good or service based on your social network status ( or on your blog ) , you have to disclose that , according to the FTC [ ftc.gov ] .
You are n't allowed to get a better price based on your influence/following and fail to disclose it .
This type of pricing scheme is dangerous , and might land company executivies in jail , for the attempt to defraud less-influential people with higher pricing .
However , I expect this could backfire... some of the more influential people will certainly say what price they got .
You ca n't control this type of information .
There will be a backlash / disillusionment when other people learn that they are getting a different price .
In fact , the " more influential person " may lose influence , when people discover that .
E.g. Getting the better price can have long-term social costs in how other people in your social network view you .
Good Advise vs. " Sell-out "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If you receive a more preferable product for a good or service based on your social network status (or on your blog),  you have to disclose that, according to the FTC [ftc.gov].
You aren't allowed to get a better price based on your influence/following and fail to disclose it.
This type of pricing scheme is dangerous, and might land company executivies in jail, for the attempt to defraud  less-influential people with higher pricing.
However, I expect this could backfire... some of the more influential people will certainly say what price they got.
You can't control this type of information.
There will be a backlash / disillusionment when other people learn that they are getting a different price.
In fact, the "more influential person" may lose influence, when people discover that.
E.g. Getting the better price can have long-term social costs in how other people in your social network view you.
Good Advise vs.  "Sell-out"
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421936</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1260709860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work. Almost all classical and neoclassical economic theory assume things like the existence of a supply/demand price curve, availability of pricing information, etc. If you have some nutty system where price curves aren't really defined beyond an individual level, prices aren't widely available, etc., all the usual pricing signals, resource allocation by the "invisible hand", etc., get a lot more muddled, and probably begin to break down.</p></div><p>Actually, it's a logical extension of classical economics.  Aggregate supply and demand curves still exits; however you are just able to better price discrimante than before.  Companies have tried this for years, universities have been doing it for years in terms of tuition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work .
Almost all classical and neoclassical economic theory assume things like the existence of a supply/demand price curve , availability of pricing information , etc .
If you have some nutty system where price curves are n't really defined beyond an individual level , prices are n't widely available , etc. , all the usual pricing signals , resource allocation by the " invisible hand " , etc. , get a lot more muddled , and probably begin to break down.Actually , it 's a logical extension of classical economics .
Aggregate supply and demand curves still exits ; however you are just able to better price discrimante than before .
Companies have tried this for years , universities have been doing it for years in terms of tuition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work.
Almost all classical and neoclassical economic theory assume things like the existence of a supply/demand price curve, availability of pricing information, etc.
If you have some nutty system where price curves aren't really defined beyond an individual level, prices aren't widely available, etc., all the usual pricing signals, resource allocation by the "invisible hand", etc., get a lot more muddled, and probably begin to break down.Actually, it's a logical extension of classical economics.
Aggregate supply and demand curves still exits; however you are just able to better price discrimante than before.
Companies have tried this for years, universities have been doing it for years in terms of tuition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417486</id>
	<title>Patentable?</title>
	<author>Bel Riose</author>
	<datestamp>1260614520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe, that some pricing strategy is patentable. Is this a joke (I'm a layman in such matters)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe , that some pricing strategy is patentable .
Is this a joke ( I 'm a layman in such matters ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe, that some pricing strategy is patentable.
Is this a joke (I'm a layman in such matters)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421128</id>
	<title>Is this even legal?</title>
	<author>jopsen</author>
	<datestamp>1260695340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This might be legal if you sell the product directly, but if you sell it through a reseller/shop or whatever... You can't specify how the reseller should charge his costumers, I believe that's illegal, at least in Denmark, and likely the entire EU...<br>Am I wrong ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might be legal if you sell the product directly , but if you sell it through a reseller/shop or whatever... You ca n't specify how the reseller should charge his costumers , I believe that 's illegal , at least in Denmark , and likely the entire EU...Am I wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might be legal if you sell the product directly, but if you sell it through a reseller/shop or whatever... You can't specify how the reseller should charge his costumers, I believe that's illegal, at least in Denmark, and likely the entire EU...Am I wrong ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418346</id>
	<title>Be Anonymous or Steal Identities?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260621600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Difficulty I have with this is that I am AC Anonymous Coward.  And therefore have little to no influence.  So I get charged the maximum allowable rate, which probably includes their margins for medical/dental/vacation/bribes etc.  Now if I was to sign my name to it, I could perhaps be influential, but no I prefer the idea of anonymity so I get seriously gouged for it.  But if I have a name, then I might get the regular rate which is supposedly discounted but really isn't, this is similar to Grocery Card thinking.  What this sort of price fixing might help spur is identity theft, so I can get the better rate for items if not just get the item for free.  You want to be anonymous you end up having to pay for it, but if you can leverage a known name/brand you can live the sweet life.  Reminds me of Christopher Rocancourt, he got away with saying he was a Rockefeller for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Difficulty I have with this is that I am AC Anonymous Coward .
And therefore have little to no influence .
So I get charged the maximum allowable rate , which probably includes their margins for medical/dental/vacation/bribes etc .
Now if I was to sign my name to it , I could perhaps be influential , but no I prefer the idea of anonymity so I get seriously gouged for it .
But if I have a name , then I might get the regular rate which is supposedly discounted but really is n't , this is similar to Grocery Card thinking .
What this sort of price fixing might help spur is identity theft , so I can get the better rate for items if not just get the item for free .
You want to be anonymous you end up having to pay for it , but if you can leverage a known name/brand you can live the sweet life .
Reminds me of Christopher Rocancourt , he got away with saying he was a Rockefeller for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Difficulty I have with this is that I am AC Anonymous Coward.
And therefore have little to no influence.
So I get charged the maximum allowable rate, which probably includes their margins for medical/dental/vacation/bribes etc.
Now if I was to sign my name to it, I could perhaps be influential, but no I prefer the idea of anonymity so I get seriously gouged for it.
But if I have a name, then I might get the regular rate which is supposedly discounted but really isn't, this is similar to Grocery Card thinking.
What this sort of price fixing might help spur is identity theft, so I can get the better rate for items if not just get the item for free.
You want to be anonymous you end up having to pay for it, but if you can leverage a known name/brand you can live the sweet life.
Reminds me of Christopher Rocancourt, he got away with saying he was a Rockefeller for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417506</id>
	<title>There's only one thing to do!</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1260614640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's all friend each other on Facebook...the entire<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. community. We will all be considered exceptionally influential and will therefore be given free stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's all friend each other on Facebook...the entire / .
community. We will all be considered exceptionally influential and will therefore be given free stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's all friend each other on Facebook...the entire /.
community. We will all be considered exceptionally influential and will therefore be given free stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417904</id>
	<title>Wait! Is it gouging the least influential...</title>
	<author>jejones</author>
	<datestamp>1260617280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or bribing the most influential?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or bribing the most influential ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or bribing the most influential?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418494</id>
	<title>How is this different from sports endorsements?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260623220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies give their products to the people who are watched using them. Pay these people to use them, then charge consumers who aren't watched "full price". Nike, Head, Speedo, EVERYONE has been doing this for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies give their products to the people who are watched using them .
Pay these people to use them , then charge consumers who are n't watched " full price " .
Nike , Head , Speedo , EVERYONE has been doing this for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies give their products to the people who are watched using them.
Pay these people to use them, then charge consumers who aren't watched "full price".
Nike, Head, Speedo, EVERYONE has been doing this for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417998</id>
	<title>But it helps to find cheaper offers</title>
	<author>Lonewolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1260618240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet is great for comparing prices and finding the cheapest offers. I have used that myself on occasion to get CDs below 10 euros or some electronic spare parts for a fraction of the price the official channels demand. And that is only about getting the same stuff cheaper. Finding alternatives from another brand is also easier when you can get all the information you need on the net.</p><p>Of course, the above covers only low priced stuff where most dealers won't bother with haggling because it would be too much work. For expensive stuff with a lot of visibility, the celebrities still have that advantage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is great for comparing prices and finding the cheapest offers .
I have used that myself on occasion to get CDs below 10 euros or some electronic spare parts for a fraction of the price the official channels demand .
And that is only about getting the same stuff cheaper .
Finding alternatives from another brand is also easier when you can get all the information you need on the net.Of course , the above covers only low priced stuff where most dealers wo n't bother with haggling because it would be too much work .
For expensive stuff with a lot of visibility , the celebrities still have that advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is great for comparing prices and finding the cheapest offers.
I have used that myself on occasion to get CDs below 10 euros or some electronic spare parts for a fraction of the price the official channels demand.
And that is only about getting the same stuff cheaper.
Finding alternatives from another brand is also easier when you can get all the information you need on the net.Of course, the above covers only low priced stuff where most dealers won't bother with haggling because it would be too much work.
For expensive stuff with a lot of visibility, the celebrities still have that advantage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418712</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1260626160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work.</p><p>It's called price differentiation. Also known as charging what the markets will bear. When a new top of the line CPU or GPU comes out, they cost some ridiculous amount of money. The people that want that 10\% FPS gain in exchange for $600 will rush out and buy them. Then a couple months later they drop the price, and the people that are willing to gain a 10\% FPS for $400 will rush out and buy them. And so forth until they're priced down at the commodity level, and then a new cycle comes out, and they do it all again.</p><p>If they charged a single price, they'd lose quite a bit of money.</p><p>The only difference here is that they're tying in the price differentiation to the customer himself, and at the same period of time, instead of making people wait to get their products.</p><p>"Oh, you make $20,000 a year? Then the new copy of Gears of War will only run you $30."</p><p>Of course, this will be amazingly susceptible to fraud. Companies which do this right now (power companies are a big one), often require proof of the lower income levels before they give you a discount.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work.It 's called price differentiation .
Also known as charging what the markets will bear .
When a new top of the line CPU or GPU comes out , they cost some ridiculous amount of money .
The people that want that 10 \ % FPS gain in exchange for $ 600 will rush out and buy them .
Then a couple months later they drop the price , and the people that are willing to gain a 10 \ % FPS for $ 400 will rush out and buy them .
And so forth until they 're priced down at the commodity level , and then a new cycle comes out , and they do it all again.If they charged a single price , they 'd lose quite a bit of money.The only difference here is that they 're tying in the price differentiation to the customer himself , and at the same period of time , instead of making people wait to get their products .
" Oh , you make $ 20,000 a year ?
Then the new copy of Gears of War will only run you $ 30 .
" Of course , this will be amazingly susceptible to fraud .
Companies which do this right now ( power companies are a big one ) , often require proof of the lower income levels before they give you a discount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work.It's called price differentiation.
Also known as charging what the markets will bear.
When a new top of the line CPU or GPU comes out, they cost some ridiculous amount of money.
The people that want that 10\% FPS gain in exchange for $600 will rush out and buy them.
Then a couple months later they drop the price, and the people that are willing to gain a 10\% FPS for $400 will rush out and buy them.
And so forth until they're priced down at the commodity level, and then a new cycle comes out, and they do it all again.If they charged a single price, they'd lose quite a bit of money.The only difference here is that they're tying in the price differentiation to the customer himself, and at the same period of time, instead of making people wait to get their products.
"Oh, you make $20,000 a year?
Then the new copy of Gears of War will only run you $30.
"Of course, this will be amazingly susceptible to fraud.
Companies which do this right now (power companies are a big one), often require proof of the lower income levels before they give you a discount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417720</id>
	<title>Apply to Slashdot moderation?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1260616020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moderators, let's try that scheme here. Give this post 0, 5, 10, 20, or 25 points, based on the influence this author wields. I await your judgment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moderators , let 's try that scheme here .
Give this post 0 , 5 , 10 , 20 , or 25 points , based on the influence this author wields .
I await your judgment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moderators, let's try that scheme here.
Give this post 0, 5, 10, 20, or 25 points, based on the influence this author wields.
I await your judgment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418736</id>
	<title>Re:Will They Ever Get to Try This?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260626460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure what your on about, this already happens all the time, even in the EU I'm sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure what your on about , this already happens all the time , even in the EU I 'm sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure what your on about, this already happens all the time, even in the EU I'm sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419018</id>
	<title>Re:So how do you game that system?</title>
	<author>Xugumad</author>
	<datestamp>1260630420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think people are overestimating how hard it is to be seen as influential. Windows 7 pre-order, is a good example. Do you think they did massively cut-price Windows 7 for people who ordered early because people wouldn't buy it once it was released, or because they needed sales figured ahead of time? Maybe, but I personally think they were trying to ensure early-adopters (who are likely to be the techies other people look to for advice) can get Windows 7 easily.</p><p>Same reason I've got Office 2010 on my PC at the moment; free Office for a year (until Oct 2010) if you can cope with the fact it's meant to be beta (no significant issues so far, personally). They're trying to motivate me to tell others they need to upgrade for cool features such as ODF support...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and I think it's working...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people are overestimating how hard it is to be seen as influential .
Windows 7 pre-order , is a good example .
Do you think they did massively cut-price Windows 7 for people who ordered early because people would n't buy it once it was released , or because they needed sales figured ahead of time ?
Maybe , but I personally think they were trying to ensure early-adopters ( who are likely to be the techies other people look to for advice ) can get Windows 7 easily.Same reason I 've got Office 2010 on my PC at the moment ; free Office for a year ( until Oct 2010 ) if you can cope with the fact it 's meant to be beta ( no significant issues so far , personally ) .
They 're trying to motivate me to tell others they need to upgrade for cool features such as ODF support... ...and I think it 's working.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people are overestimating how hard it is to be seen as influential.
Windows 7 pre-order, is a good example.
Do you think they did massively cut-price Windows 7 for people who ordered early because people wouldn't buy it once it was released, or because they needed sales figured ahead of time?
Maybe, but I personally think they were trying to ensure early-adopters (who are likely to be the techies other people look to for advice) can get Windows 7 easily.Same reason I've got Office 2010 on my PC at the moment; free Office for a year (until Oct 2010) if you can cope with the fact it's meant to be beta (no significant issues so far, personally).
They're trying to motivate me to tell others they need to upgrade for cool features such as ODF support... ...and I think it's working...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418456</id>
	<title>Re:Damn impressive spin  - Monopolist References</title>
	<author>theodp</author>
	<datestamp>1260622860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Microsoft Research page hosting the video has a typo ("How can a monoplist seller use social network effects to increase revenue earned?"), but the WWW2008 paper's got it right ("We assume that the seller is a monopolist and is interested in maximizing its revenue."). Perhaps Microsoft didn't want to be too restrictive with the patent.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Microsoft Research page hosting the video has a typo ( " How can a monoplist seller use social network effects to increase revenue earned ?
" ) , but the WWW2008 paper 's got it right ( " We assume that the seller is a monopolist and is interested in maximizing its revenue. " ) .
Perhaps Microsoft did n't want to be too restrictive with the patent .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Microsoft Research page hosting the video has a typo ("How can a monoplist seller use social network effects to increase revenue earned?
"), but the WWW2008 paper's got it right ("We assume that the seller is a monopolist and is interested in maximizing its revenue.").
Perhaps Microsoft didn't want to be too restrictive with the patent.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417846</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1260616920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it's a business method, but no, it's not a patent.  At least, not yet, anyway.</p><p>This one will undoubtedly get, ahem, "Bill-skied".  Hopefully, we'll find out what SCOTUS has to say on the matter before it gets examined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it 's a business method , but no , it 's not a patent .
At least , not yet , anyway.This one will undoubtedly get , ahem , " Bill-skied " .
Hopefully , we 'll find out what SCOTUS has to say on the matter before it gets examined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it's a business method, but no, it's not a patent.
At least, not yet, anyway.This one will undoubtedly get, ahem, "Bill-skied".
Hopefully, we'll find out what SCOTUS has to say on the matter before it gets examined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418812</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260627420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, not really, and what MS is doing can be explained with minimal first-year economics. MS is doing nothing more than taking price discrimination to its conclusion. The producers have perfect information (in the sense used in economics) so are able to set its prices according to each consumer. You could say this moves the mathematics behind all the economics from continuous to discrete (computation of utility at its basest level is integration of a utility function).</p><p>See it this way: a firm may set different prices for different groups, e.g. Coca Cola might set lower prices for young people who may switch to Pepsi more easily, and set higher prices for older people. (That was a made up example.) There you've discriminated between two groups of consumers. Extend this idea... MS sets a price for a consumer group with only one member.</p><p>Instead of relying on a curve which approximates the utility gained from a particular good MS has devised a way of getting the actual points (or closer to them more than anyone else). Airlines do this to a certain extent already.</p><p>A "universal price" free market is almost always impossible to achieve, esp. when markets are segmented. It is the way things should go if certain conditions are satisfied (heh, Libertarians) but things like slow information, barriers to market entry and all the other terminology dropping that newspapers like to do mean that is doesn't happen in practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , not really , and what MS is doing can be explained with minimal first-year economics .
MS is doing nothing more than taking price discrimination to its conclusion .
The producers have perfect information ( in the sense used in economics ) so are able to set its prices according to each consumer .
You could say this moves the mathematics behind all the economics from continuous to discrete ( computation of utility at its basest level is integration of a utility function ) .See it this way : a firm may set different prices for different groups , e.g .
Coca Cola might set lower prices for young people who may switch to Pepsi more easily , and set higher prices for older people .
( That was a made up example .
) There you 've discriminated between two groups of consumers .
Extend this idea... MS sets a price for a consumer group with only one member.Instead of relying on a curve which approximates the utility gained from a particular good MS has devised a way of getting the actual points ( or closer to them more than anyone else ) .
Airlines do this to a certain extent already.A " universal price " free market is almost always impossible to achieve , esp .
when markets are segmented .
It is the way things should go if certain conditions are satisfied ( heh , Libertarians ) but things like slow information , barriers to market entry and all the other terminology dropping that newspapers like to do mean that is does n't happen in practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, not really, and what MS is doing can be explained with minimal first-year economics.
MS is doing nothing more than taking price discrimination to its conclusion.
The producers have perfect information (in the sense used in economics) so are able to set its prices according to each consumer.
You could say this moves the mathematics behind all the economics from continuous to discrete (computation of utility at its basest level is integration of a utility function).See it this way: a firm may set different prices for different groups, e.g.
Coca Cola might set lower prices for young people who may switch to Pepsi more easily, and set higher prices for older people.
(That was a made up example.
) There you've discriminated between two groups of consumers.
Extend this idea... MS sets a price for a consumer group with only one member.Instead of relying on a curve which approximates the utility gained from a particular good MS has devised a way of getting the actual points (or closer to them more than anyone else).
Airlines do this to a certain extent already.A "universal price" free market is almost always impossible to achieve, esp.
when markets are segmented.
It is the way things should go if certain conditions are satisfied (heh, Libertarians) but things like slow information, barriers to market entry and all the other terminology dropping that newspapers like to do mean that is doesn't happen in practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417650</id>
	<title>Re:How is this any different than now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260615660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not, and judging from the start of the discussion it's going to be funny to see how the "prior art" (because this is common practice today, just less scientific perhaps) is going to fare vs. the "Microsoft proposing new evil" line. They are mutually exclusive, but I'm sure we'll manage to combine them and condemn Microsoft for violating both at once<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not , and judging from the start of the discussion it 's going to be funny to see how the " prior art " ( because this is common practice today , just less scientific perhaps ) is going to fare vs. the " Microsoft proposing new evil " line .
They are mutually exclusive , but I 'm sure we 'll manage to combine them and condemn Microsoft for violating both at once : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not, and judging from the start of the discussion it's going to be funny to see how the "prior art" (because this is common practice today, just less scientific perhaps) is going to fare vs. the "Microsoft proposing new evil" line.
They are mutually exclusive, but I'm sure we'll manage to combine them and condemn Microsoft for violating both at once :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418374</id>
	<title>Re:Works for me</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1260621900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, they should have paid you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , they should have paid you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, they should have paid you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420094</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>FrozenGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1260640260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Essentially, this will only work in a monopoly situation.  People of minimal influence must constitute a large segment of the market to make this worthwhile.  If one of many competitors is screwing over a large segment of the market, other competitors will cater to that large segment, making the efforts of the one competitor futile.  <br> <br>You only really need one competitor to not buy into the scheme for the scheme to fail.  Treating your customers well never hurts your business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Essentially , this will only work in a monopoly situation .
People of minimal influence must constitute a large segment of the market to make this worthwhile .
If one of many competitors is screwing over a large segment of the market , other competitors will cater to that large segment , making the efforts of the one competitor futile .
You only really need one competitor to not buy into the scheme for the scheme to fail .
Treating your customers well never hurts your business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Essentially, this will only work in a monopoly situation.
People of minimal influence must constitute a large segment of the market to make this worthwhile.
If one of many competitors is screwing over a large segment of the market, other competitors will cater to that large segment, making the efforts of the one competitor futile.
You only really need one competitor to not buy into the scheme for the scheme to fail.
Treating your customers well never hurts your business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30427902</id>
	<title>Suicide Wish, let's grant it.</title>
	<author>mattr</author>
	<datestamp>1260724620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that's why America sucks these days and is a laughing stock. The most visible fruits of the current system, as seen by the Internet-connected population, are:<br>- RIAA lawsuits for sharing of intangible rights (which was legal in analog era)... despite ability to build models that could benefit artists and consumers alike while allowing sharing.<br>- Monopolist software company created by world's richest man, patenting "price gouging of the least influential", despite having the resources to build new better software packages.<br>- Google CEO disavowing responsibility to protect user privacy.. despite being in a position to protect it strongly.<br>- First black U.S. President, having not accomplished anything yet, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize... despite being in a position to give a great example of character to blacks, whites, and all races alike.</p><p>Influential entities like the above which inhabit influential positions in the world, find it much more profitable to act cynically than to do the right thing. This is why the dollar gets torpedoed and the U.S. is losing relevancy.</p><p>These issues are all vulnerable to information sharing via the media, in particular Microsoft, which I think should be the test case since they deserve it.<br>- Purchasers should post what they paid for a product<br>- The purchaser then learns what segment Microsoft considers them to inhabit<br>- Lower ranked segment inhabitants are encouraged to post reviews and letters.<br>The intent being to invert the Microsoft cynical agenda (as exemplified in their ideal pricing structure) and force the monopolist to sell its product to the entire market at the minimum price for which it sells in any market segment worldwide.<br>They also should have the antimonopoly hearings reconvened and be fined for attempting to patent something which so clearly goes against the spirit of that ruling.<br>Finally I would like to say that I have decided to fine MS one user license worth myself, as I will not tell my nephew to buy MS Office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's why America sucks these days and is a laughing stock .
The most visible fruits of the current system , as seen by the Internet-connected population , are : - RIAA lawsuits for sharing of intangible rights ( which was legal in analog era ) ... despite ability to build models that could benefit artists and consumers alike while allowing sharing.- Monopolist software company created by world 's richest man , patenting " price gouging of the least influential " , despite having the resources to build new better software packages.- Google CEO disavowing responsibility to protect user privacy.. despite being in a position to protect it strongly.- First black U.S. President , having not accomplished anything yet , accepting the Nobel Peace Prize... despite being in a position to give a great example of character to blacks , whites , and all races alike.Influential entities like the above which inhabit influential positions in the world , find it much more profitable to act cynically than to do the right thing .
This is why the dollar gets torpedoed and the U.S. is losing relevancy.These issues are all vulnerable to information sharing via the media , in particular Microsoft , which I think should be the test case since they deserve it.- Purchasers should post what they paid for a product- The purchaser then learns what segment Microsoft considers them to inhabit- Lower ranked segment inhabitants are encouraged to post reviews and letters.The intent being to invert the Microsoft cynical agenda ( as exemplified in their ideal pricing structure ) and force the monopolist to sell its product to the entire market at the minimum price for which it sells in any market segment worldwide.They also should have the antimonopoly hearings reconvened and be fined for attempting to patent something which so clearly goes against the spirit of that ruling.Finally I would like to say that I have decided to fine MS one user license worth myself , as I will not tell my nephew to buy MS Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's why America sucks these days and is a laughing stock.
The most visible fruits of the current system, as seen by the Internet-connected population, are:- RIAA lawsuits for sharing of intangible rights (which was legal in analog era)... despite ability to build models that could benefit artists and consumers alike while allowing sharing.- Monopolist software company created by world's richest man, patenting "price gouging of the least influential", despite having the resources to build new better software packages.- Google CEO disavowing responsibility to protect user privacy.. despite being in a position to protect it strongly.- First black U.S. President, having not accomplished anything yet, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize... despite being in a position to give a great example of character to blacks, whites, and all races alike.Influential entities like the above which inhabit influential positions in the world, find it much more profitable to act cynically than to do the right thing.
This is why the dollar gets torpedoed and the U.S. is losing relevancy.These issues are all vulnerable to information sharing via the media, in particular Microsoft, which I think should be the test case since they deserve it.- Purchasers should post what they paid for a product- The purchaser then learns what segment Microsoft considers them to inhabit- Lower ranked segment inhabitants are encouraged to post reviews and letters.The intent being to invert the Microsoft cynical agenda (as exemplified in their ideal pricing structure) and force the monopolist to sell its product to the entire market at the minimum price for which it sells in any market segment worldwide.They also should have the antimonopoly hearings reconvened and be fined for attempting to patent something which so clearly goes against the spirit of that ruling.Finally I would like to say that I have decided to fine MS one user license worth myself, as I will not tell my nephew to buy MS Office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418052</id>
	<title>Prior art</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1260618660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A pretty close one: having the option to disable slashdot ads based on user karma.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A pretty close one : having the option to disable slashdot ads based on user karma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A pretty close one: having the option to disable slashdot ads based on user karma.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417760</id>
	<title>This is done everywhere...</title>
	<author>jmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1260616320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just look at what they're proposing.  Those who INFLUENCE other people in a way that makes a product more valuable.. are desirable customers.  So we discount them or give the product to them for free because it increases the value of the product on the whole.  Let's look at two examples that are present in all places one might wish to look:<br> <br>

1. Advertising.  Duh.  Sports athletes, actors, models, and other such famous figures.  We see them sporting things GIVEN to them by companies.  Why?  Because the trend is:  "he/she has it, that's so cool, I want one too!"  That's exactly what this system is.<br> 

2. Referral rewards.  This one is particularly damning to this patent.  Many companies allow people to refer other customers and as a reward they eventually get a kickback or free stuff.  Why?  BECAUSE THEY ARE HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL.  And there you have it, this EXACT system, down to the letter.  If you prove you're influential, we give you a discount or free things because we know you're likely to bring us more customers and as a result we can raise our prices.<br> 

This patent will almost certainly be shot down via prior art if those in charge of approving them have paid attention to marketing strategies for the past few decades.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look at what they 're proposing .
Those who INFLUENCE other people in a way that makes a product more valuable.. are desirable customers .
So we discount them or give the product to them for free because it increases the value of the product on the whole .
Let 's look at two examples that are present in all places one might wish to look : 1 .
Advertising. Duh .
Sports athletes , actors , models , and other such famous figures .
We see them sporting things GIVEN to them by companies .
Why ? Because the trend is : " he/she has it , that 's so cool , I want one too !
" That 's exactly what this system is .
2. Referral rewards .
This one is particularly damning to this patent .
Many companies allow people to refer other customers and as a reward they eventually get a kickback or free stuff .
Why ? BECAUSE THEY ARE HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL .
And there you have it , this EXACT system , down to the letter .
If you prove you 're influential , we give you a discount or free things because we know you 're likely to bring us more customers and as a result we can raise our prices .
This patent will almost certainly be shot down via prior art if those in charge of approving them have paid attention to marketing strategies for the past few decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look at what they're proposing.
Those who INFLUENCE other people in a way that makes a product more valuable.. are desirable customers.
So we discount them or give the product to them for free because it increases the value of the product on the whole.
Let's look at two examples that are present in all places one might wish to look: 

1.
Advertising.  Duh.
Sports athletes, actors, models, and other such famous figures.
We see them sporting things GIVEN to them by companies.
Why?  Because the trend is:  "he/she has it, that's so cool, I want one too!
"  That's exactly what this system is.
2. Referral rewards.
This one is particularly damning to this patent.
Many companies allow people to refer other customers and as a reward they eventually get a kickback or free stuff.
Why?  BECAUSE THEY ARE HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL.
And there you have it, this EXACT system, down to the letter.
If you prove you're influential, we give you a discount or free things because we know you're likely to bring us more customers and as a result we can raise our prices.
This patent will almost certainly be shot down via prior art if those in charge of approving them have paid attention to marketing strategies for the past few decades.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419092</id>
	<title>What about Whuffies?</title>
	<author>pegasustonans</author>
	<datestamp>1260631440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie" title="wikipedia.org">Whuffie</a> [wikipedia.org] is not quite prior art, but it's pretty darn close.  In any event, reading "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" should give anyone a good sense of why this is a bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the Whuffie [ wikipedia.org ] is not quite prior art , but it 's pretty darn close .
In any event , reading " Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom " should give anyone a good sense of why this is a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the Whuffie [wikipedia.org] is not quite prior art, but it's pretty darn close.
In any event, reading "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" should give anyone a good sense of why this is a bad idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420512</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260644220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this not payola?  But I'm a laissez-faire capitalist kind of Influential Guy, so I'll sell anything that uses reputation pricing for 50\% of the difference between my cost and the peon price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this not payola ?
But I 'm a laissez-faire capitalist kind of Influential Guy , so I 'll sell anything that uses reputation pricing for 50 \ % of the difference between my cost and the peon price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this not payola?
But I'm a laissez-faire capitalist kind of Influential Guy, so I'll sell anything that uses reputation pricing for 50\% of the difference between my cost and the peon price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417702</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260615900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the most evil plan related to software that I think I've ever heard. Their plan is basically to prey on the weak. Are they going to patent stealing candy from children next?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the most evil plan related to software that I think I 've ever heard .
Their plan is basically to prey on the weak .
Are they going to patent stealing candy from children next ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the most evil plan related to software that I think I've ever heard.
Their plan is basically to prey on the weak.
Are they going to patent stealing candy from children next?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417568</id>
	<title>New Business Model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260615000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Become influential or join together with a group of influential friends.</p><p>2. Buy things very cheap.</p><p>3. Sell them at a higher price.</p><p>4. Profit</p><p>In fact, you could set up a brokerage business where you find people that have cheapest access to things, offer to buy from them at a slightly higher price than they pay, and sell at a higher price to groups that would have to pay even more.  Lots of profit opportunities here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Become influential or join together with a group of influential friends.2 .
Buy things very cheap.3 .
Sell them at a higher price.4 .
ProfitIn fact , you could set up a brokerage business where you find people that have cheapest access to things , offer to buy from them at a slightly higher price than they pay , and sell at a higher price to groups that would have to pay even more .
Lots of profit opportunities here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Become influential or join together with a group of influential friends.2.
Buy things very cheap.3.
Sell them at a higher price.4.
ProfitIn fact, you could set up a brokerage business where you find people that have cheapest access to things, offer to buy from them at a slightly higher price than they pay, and sell at a higher price to groups that would have to pay even more.
Lots of profit opportunities here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418842</id>
	<title>Re:There's only one thing to do!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260627720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's all get plastic surgery and freeze our age, too.</p><p>Not all of their "influence" variables are going to be remotely fair. In practice, this is going to mean rich folks get things cheaper and poor folks pay more. It's nothing new, as other comments point out, but that doesn't mean it's something that can be laughed off with facebook friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's all get plastic surgery and freeze our age , too.Not all of their " influence " variables are going to be remotely fair .
In practice , this is going to mean rich folks get things cheaper and poor folks pay more .
It 's nothing new , as other comments point out , but that does n't mean it 's something that can be laughed off with facebook friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's all get plastic surgery and freeze our age, too.Not all of their "influence" variables are going to be remotely fair.
In practice, this is going to mean rich folks get things cheaper and poor folks pay more.
It's nothing new, as other comments point out, but that doesn't mean it's something that can be laughed off with facebook friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417550</id>
	<title>Monopolists price fixing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260614880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait a tic...

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Microsoft" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Microsoft</a> [wikipedia.org]

If anti-trust doesnt cover this, we need to call our congress people right away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a tic.. . http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United \ _States \ _v. \ _Microsoft [ wikipedia.org ] If anti-trust doesnt cover this , we need to call our congress people right away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a tic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Microsoft [wikipedia.org]

If anti-trust doesnt cover this, we need to call our congress people right away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419058</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1260631020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And what about people who try to be anonymous? Will the prices for them act as a "list price" -- a price so high no one pays it, except for those unwilling to give up their anonymity? This sounds like bad news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what about people who try to be anonymous ?
Will the prices for them act as a " list price " -- a price so high no one pays it , except for those unwilling to give up their anonymity ?
This sounds like bad news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what about people who try to be anonymous?
Will the prices for them act as a "list price" -- a price so high no one pays it, except for those unwilling to give up their anonymity?
This sounds like bad news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417874</id>
	<title>A Business Method - not patentable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260617100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that not the case? And. others already use the same or related structures - some for years. Oriental bazaars and traders have worked this way for centuries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that not the case ?
And. others already use the same or related structures - some for years .
Oriental bazaars and traders have worked this way for centuries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that not the case?
And. others already use the same or related structures - some for years.
Oriental bazaars and traders have worked this way for centuries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420800</id>
	<title>Re:Works for me</title>
	<author>euxneks</author>
	<datestamp>1260647040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey, works for me... Microsoft gave me a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit for hosting a Windows 7 party... I am influencial, I get free software!</p></div><p>Is... that like a key party? Do you swap OSes?  I sure hope you got a better one than windows 7, she's a total dog.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , works for me... Microsoft gave me a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit for hosting a Windows 7 party... I am influencial , I get free software ! Is... that like a key party ?
Do you swap OSes ?
I sure hope you got a better one than windows 7 , she 's a total dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, works for me... Microsoft gave me a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit for hosting a Windows 7 party... I am influencial, I get free software!Is... that like a key party?
Do you swap OSes?
I sure hope you got a better one than windows 7, she's a total dog.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418500</id>
	<title>Re:Already an established business practice</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1260623280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the way it's always been - you have those who pay full price, those who get rebates, those who get promotional copies for free and those you have to sponsor,</p></div></blockquote><p>You forgot those that download the products from bittorrent sites.</p><p>I got your influence hangin' right here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the way it 's always been - you have those who pay full price , those who get rebates , those who get promotional copies for free and those you have to sponsor,You forgot those that download the products from bittorrent sites.I got your influence hangin ' right here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the way it's always been - you have those who pay full price, those who get rebates, those who get promotional copies for free and those you have to sponsor,You forgot those that download the products from bittorrent sites.I got your influence hangin' right here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418126</id>
	<title>What a sick fricking world.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1260619320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has the world gotten so twisted that we cannot create a place for kids to hang out online without a bunch of assholes trying to put them under a magnifying glass to sell them something?  Why do people expect teenagers to be anything less than jaded when the whole of humanity does nothing but pander to them like objects and crowds them into little spaces.</p><p>HEY, TEACHERS! LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has the world gotten so twisted that we can not create a place for kids to hang out online without a bunch of assholes trying to put them under a magnifying glass to sell them something ?
Why do people expect teenagers to be anything less than jaded when the whole of humanity does nothing but pander to them like objects and crowds them into little spaces.HEY , TEACHERS !
LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has the world gotten so twisted that we cannot create a place for kids to hang out online without a bunch of assholes trying to put them under a magnifying glass to sell them something?
Why do people expect teenagers to be anything less than jaded when the whole of humanity does nothing but pander to them like objects and crowds them into little spaces.HEY, TEACHERS!
LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30426554</id>
	<title>Whuffie</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1260711600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'd better get to work on my Whuffie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'd better get to work on my Whuffie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'd better get to work on my Whuffie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417666</id>
	<title>Standard marketing strategy, automated.</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1260615780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a common story about young entrepreneurs that give samples of their products to "popular" people to create demand. This is, ultimately, just that strategy writ large.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a common story about young entrepreneurs that give samples of their products to " popular " people to create demand .
This is , ultimately , just that strategy writ large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a common story about young entrepreneurs that give samples of their products to "popular" people to create demand.
This is, ultimately, just that strategy writ large.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417526</id>
	<title>How is this any different than now?</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1260614760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[0004]The described implementations relate to social marketing. One technique identifies potential buyers of a product where the potential buyers belong to a social network. <b>The technique determines a price to offer the product to individual potential buyers that considers both influence of the individual potential buyer within the social network and overall revenue from sales of the product to the potential buyers.</b> </p><p>

[0005]Another implementation identifies potential buyers of a product in a social network. <b>The implementation arbitrarily selects a set of the potential buyers to offer the product at a relatively low price to influence the remaining potential buyers.</b> The implementation also updates membership in the set by adding and removing individual potential buyers from the set until revenue from product sales to the social network is not increased by adding or removing an individual potential buyer from the set. The above listed examples are intended to provide a quick reference to aid the reader and are not intended to define the scope of the concepts described herein.</p> </div><p>The rock stars get their guitars for <i>free</i> (Paul McCartney once commented:"When you're poor you cant' afford them and when you're rich they give them to you.) is the same thing. </p><p>Or how about paying celebrities to use your product.</p><p>Now the <i>randomly</i> selecting people part. What's wrong with that? So they're trying to accelerate the product to the tipping point.</p><p>This will hurt no one and this was just an "article" to have an excuse to bash Microsoft about something. *yawn*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ 0004 ] The described implementations relate to social marketing .
One technique identifies potential buyers of a product where the potential buyers belong to a social network .
The technique determines a price to offer the product to individual potential buyers that considers both influence of the individual potential buyer within the social network and overall revenue from sales of the product to the potential buyers .
[ 0005 ] Another implementation identifies potential buyers of a product in a social network .
The implementation arbitrarily selects a set of the potential buyers to offer the product at a relatively low price to influence the remaining potential buyers .
The implementation also updates membership in the set by adding and removing individual potential buyers from the set until revenue from product sales to the social network is not increased by adding or removing an individual potential buyer from the set .
The above listed examples are intended to provide a quick reference to aid the reader and are not intended to define the scope of the concepts described herein .
The rock stars get their guitars for free ( Paul McCartney once commented : " When you 're poor you cant ' afford them and when you 're rich they give them to you .
) is the same thing .
Or how about paying celebrities to use your product.Now the randomly selecting people part .
What 's wrong with that ?
So they 're trying to accelerate the product to the tipping point.This will hurt no one and this was just an " article " to have an excuse to bash Microsoft about something .
* yawn *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[0004]The described implementations relate to social marketing.
One technique identifies potential buyers of a product where the potential buyers belong to a social network.
The technique determines a price to offer the product to individual potential buyers that considers both influence of the individual potential buyer within the social network and overall revenue from sales of the product to the potential buyers.
[0005]Another implementation identifies potential buyers of a product in a social network.
The implementation arbitrarily selects a set of the potential buyers to offer the product at a relatively low price to influence the remaining potential buyers.
The implementation also updates membership in the set by adding and removing individual potential buyers from the set until revenue from product sales to the social network is not increased by adding or removing an individual potential buyer from the set.
The above listed examples are intended to provide a quick reference to aid the reader and are not intended to define the scope of the concepts described herein.
The rock stars get their guitars for free (Paul McCartney once commented:"When you're poor you cant' afford them and when you're rich they give them to you.
) is the same thing.
Or how about paying celebrities to use your product.Now the randomly selecting people part.
What's wrong with that?
So they're trying to accelerate the product to the tipping point.This will hurt no one and this was just an "article" to have an excuse to bash Microsoft about something.
*yawn*
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260615180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> It think the point of this patent is that those people who are "less influential" will not have the means to tell the world they have been ripped off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It think the point of this patent is that those people who are " less influential " will not have the means to tell the world they have been ripped off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It think the point of this patent is that those people who are "less influential" will not have the means to tell the world they have been ripped off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417832</id>
	<title>Re:Should fail due to prior art.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260616800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent specifically talks about digital goods that can be reproduced at no cost and internet-based social networks. So physical goods and real-world influencers would not be prior art.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. not that I disagree that they should be as the whole thing is marketing 102.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent specifically talks about digital goods that can be reproduced at no cost and internet-based social networks .
So physical goods and real-world influencers would not be prior art .
.. not that I disagree that they should be as the whole thing is marketing 102 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent specifically talks about digital goods that can be reproduced at no cost and internet-based social networks.
So physical goods and real-world influencers would not be prior art.
.. not that I disagree that they should be as the whole thing is marketing 102.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420990</id>
	<title>Re:New Business Model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260736440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can  resell it... AFAIK you cannot legally resell M$ Licenses..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can resell it... AFAIK you can not legally resell M $ Licenses. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can  resell it... AFAIK you cannot legally resell M$ Licenses..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418756</id>
	<title>They have thoroughly tested this</title>
	<author>postmortem</author>
	<datestamp>1260626520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Windows 7 release.</p><p>'Influential' people (loud online and offline how Vista sucked) and enthusiasts (basically same as first group) were given discounted versions of Windows 7 (win 7 parties, pre-release discounts, school discounts, etc.)</p><p>And they all took the bait, told the world how Win 7 is great... and guess what? You can't buy discounted version, you have to shell out $120 for cheapest upgrade. The student version offer is about to end as well, and family upgrade option 3-for-150 has been discontinued.</p><p>Sadly, it works, now everybody wants or considers Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Windows 7 release .
'Influential ' people ( loud online and offline how Vista sucked ) and enthusiasts ( basically same as first group ) were given discounted versions of Windows 7 ( win 7 parties , pre-release discounts , school discounts , etc .
) And they all took the bait , told the world how Win 7 is great... and guess what ?
You ca n't buy discounted version , you have to shell out $ 120 for cheapest upgrade .
The student version offer is about to end as well , and family upgrade option 3-for-150 has been discontinued.Sadly , it works , now everybody wants or considers Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Windows 7 release.
'Influential' people (loud online and offline how Vista sucked) and enthusiasts (basically same as first group) were given discounted versions of Windows 7 (win 7 parties, pre-release discounts, school discounts, etc.
)And they all took the bait, told the world how Win 7 is great... and guess what?
You can't buy discounted version, you have to shell out $120 for cheapest upgrade.
The student version offer is about to end as well, and family upgrade option 3-for-150 has been discontinued.Sadly, it works, now everybody wants or considers Windows 7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417468</id>
	<title>Works for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260614340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, works for me... Microsoft gave me a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit for hosting a Windows 7 party... I am influencial, I get free software!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , works for me... Microsoft gave me a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit for hosting a Windows 7 party... I am influencial , I get free software !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, works for me... Microsoft gave me a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit for hosting a Windows 7 party... I am influencial, I get free software!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478</id>
	<title>Should fail due to prior art.</title>
	<author>Sebilrazen</author>
	<datestamp>1260614340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd swear that's what the merchandise bags they give out at movie premieres are.  The celebrities get stuff free, wield their influence over those susceptible to influencing who rush out and buy it. $0-&gt;$x.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd swear that 's what the merchandise bags they give out at movie premieres are .
The celebrities get stuff free , wield their influence over those susceptible to influencing who rush out and buy it .
$ 0- &gt; $ x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd swear that's what the merchandise bags they give out at movie premieres are.
The celebrities get stuff free, wield their influence over those susceptible to influencing who rush out and buy it.
$0-&gt;$x.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418604</id>
	<title>If you've got nothing to hide, you.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260624540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's all the fuss about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's all the fuss about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's all the fuss about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418932</id>
	<title>Re:The commercialization of friendship</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1260628920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will always depend. If Friend A tries to show me how cool Widget A is, and I always see him using it and how it has been a positive acquisition for him, then I'm likely to take his endorsement of the product into account. If Friend B tries to show me that she thinks that Widget B is cool, but she never walks around with it, and the only time I ever hear anything about it is when she tries to get me to buy one, and when I really buckle down and ask her what she thinks of it she avoids a direct answer, then you can bet that I'm not going to be terribly impressed with Widget B and certainly won't be buying one.</p><p>this happens all the time, right now. People come to me all the time to talk to me about buying computers and cell phones. I give them my honest opinion, which is typically reflected in what I own, or in spite of what I own. I tell friends that I love my Touch Pro2 and to seriously consider getting one, but tell fellow DJ friends that I'm dissatisfied with my purchase of Torq and that I would recommend Deckadance or Serato instead. My influence comes from the fact that I give it honestly, consistently, and that people are generally happy with purchases I recommend to them. If Microsoft wants to start giving me $29 copies of Win7 and $49 copies of Office for doing what I do now, I've got no problem with that. In fact, when I worked retail, they gave me copies of Halo 2 and Gears of War for free if I took some tests and answered a few multiple choice questions on it. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will always depend .
If Friend A tries to show me how cool Widget A is , and I always see him using it and how it has been a positive acquisition for him , then I 'm likely to take his endorsement of the product into account .
If Friend B tries to show me that she thinks that Widget B is cool , but she never walks around with it , and the only time I ever hear anything about it is when she tries to get me to buy one , and when I really buckle down and ask her what she thinks of it she avoids a direct answer , then you can bet that I 'm not going to be terribly impressed with Widget B and certainly wo n't be buying one.this happens all the time , right now .
People come to me all the time to talk to me about buying computers and cell phones .
I give them my honest opinion , which is typically reflected in what I own , or in spite of what I own .
I tell friends that I love my Touch Pro2 and to seriously consider getting one , but tell fellow DJ friends that I 'm dissatisfied with my purchase of Torq and that I would recommend Deckadance or Serato instead .
My influence comes from the fact that I give it honestly , consistently , and that people are generally happy with purchases I recommend to them .
If Microsoft wants to start giving me $ 29 copies of Win7 and $ 49 copies of Office for doing what I do now , I 've got no problem with that .
In fact , when I worked retail , they gave me copies of Halo 2 and Gears of War for free if I took some tests and answered a few multiple choice questions on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will always depend.
If Friend A tries to show me how cool Widget A is, and I always see him using it and how it has been a positive acquisition for him, then I'm likely to take his endorsement of the product into account.
If Friend B tries to show me that she thinks that Widget B is cool, but she never walks around with it, and the only time I ever hear anything about it is when she tries to get me to buy one, and when I really buckle down and ask her what she thinks of it she avoids a direct answer, then you can bet that I'm not going to be terribly impressed with Widget B and certainly won't be buying one.this happens all the time, right now.
People come to me all the time to talk to me about buying computers and cell phones.
I give them my honest opinion, which is typically reflected in what I own, or in spite of what I own.
I tell friends that I love my Touch Pro2 and to seriously consider getting one, but tell fellow DJ friends that I'm dissatisfied with my purchase of Torq and that I would recommend Deckadance or Serato instead.
My influence comes from the fact that I give it honestly, consistently, and that people are generally happy with purchases I recommend to them.
If Microsoft wants to start giving me $29 copies of Win7 and $49 copies of Office for doing what I do now, I've got no problem with that.
In fact, when I worked retail, they gave me copies of Halo 2 and Gears of War for free if I took some tests and answered a few multiple choice questions on it. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30426990</id>
	<title>Re:Should fail due to prior art.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260715080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what about amazon's dynamic pricing? sure they have a patent on that already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what about amazon 's dynamic pricing ?
sure they have a patent on that already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what about amazon's dynamic pricing?
sure they have a patent on that already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417976</id>
	<title>Re:The commercialization of friendship</title>
	<author>aaandre</author>
	<datestamp>1260618060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The natural tendency of Money + Usury = monetizing everything.</p><p>Check this essay on the nature of current money implementation, how it robs humanity of true value and alternatives:</p><p><a href="http://www.realitysandwich.com/money\_a\_new\_beginning" title="realitysandwich.com">http://www.realitysandwich.com/money\_a\_new\_beginning</a> [realitysandwich.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The natural tendency of Money + Usury = monetizing everything.Check this essay on the nature of current money implementation , how it robs humanity of true value and alternatives : http : //www.realitysandwich.com/money \ _a \ _new \ _beginning [ realitysandwich.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The natural tendency of Money + Usury = monetizing everything.Check this essay on the nature of current money implementation, how it robs humanity of true value and alternatives:http://www.realitysandwich.com/money\_a\_new\_beginning [realitysandwich.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417906</id>
	<title>So how do you game that system?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1260617280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's be blunt here, if one side ceases to play fair, I see no reason in not following.</p><p>So what's the requirement to be seen as "influential"? Having a shitload of friends on facebook? Great. Let's start a group dedicated to the sole purpose of having friends. People you don't know or don't care about, as long as you have a lot of friends you get crap cheaper? Works for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's be blunt here , if one side ceases to play fair , I see no reason in not following.So what 's the requirement to be seen as " influential " ?
Having a shitload of friends on facebook ?
Great. Let 's start a group dedicated to the sole purpose of having friends .
People you do n't know or do n't care about , as long as you have a lot of friends you get crap cheaper ?
Works for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's be blunt here, if one side ceases to play fair, I see no reason in not following.So what's the requirement to be seen as "influential"?
Having a shitload of friends on facebook?
Great. Let's start a group dedicated to the sole purpose of having friends.
People you don't know or don't care about, as long as you have a lot of friends you get crap cheaper?
Works for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418392</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1260622080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html" title="unc.edu">"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."</a> [unc.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" On the Internet , nobody knows you 're a dog .
" [ unc.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
" [unc.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418714</id>
	<title>Not news</title>
	<author>Xamusk</author>
	<datestamp>1260626160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I checked, that's what politicians do</p><p>Maybe I should just start a church and make believers be my friend on Facebook</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , that 's what politicians doMaybe I should just start a church and make believers be my friend on Facebook</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked, that's what politicians doMaybe I should just start a church and make believers be my friend on Facebook</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417722</id>
	<title>Cool</title>
	<author>FlyByPC</author>
	<datestamp>1260616020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, for one, welcome the new opportunity to game the system. I mean pricing scheme.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome the new opportunity to game the system .
I mean pricing scheme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome the new opportunity to game the system.
I mean pricing scheme.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30422672</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260720780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because the market is the battlefield of corporations. The prize is the customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because the market is the battlefield of corporations .
The prize is the customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because the market is the battlefield of corporations.
The prize is the customer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417800</id>
	<title>Sounds like it boils down to...</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1260616560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... Screw the geeks, dweebs, nerds, and awkward kids and adults, give it away free to the popular people...<br><br>Guess what, we are NOT the popular people out there.<br>Do you really want to subsidize them?<br><br>As to the celebrity thing, I don't much like it, they get paid lots of money, they can afford to buy their own freaking PS3, and the house to put it in, but that at least falls under advertising.<br>However, making it a form of industry wide pricing scheme, that has to be illegal.<br>(And if it isn't, it should be.)<br><br>"I'm sorry mam, according to the index, nobody really likes you, so we have to charge you 3 times as much for that."</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Screw the geeks , dweebs , nerds , and awkward kids and adults , give it away free to the popular people...Guess what , we are NOT the popular people out there.Do you really want to subsidize them ? As to the celebrity thing , I do n't much like it , they get paid lots of money , they can afford to buy their own freaking PS3 , and the house to put it in , but that at least falls under advertising.However , making it a form of industry wide pricing scheme , that has to be illegal .
( And if it is n't , it should be .
) " I 'm sorry mam , according to the index , nobody really likes you , so we have to charge you 3 times as much for that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Screw the geeks, dweebs, nerds, and awkward kids and adults, give it away free to the popular people...Guess what, we are NOT the popular people out there.Do you really want to subsidize them?As to the celebrity thing, I don't much like it, they get paid lots of money, they can afford to buy their own freaking PS3, and the house to put it in, but that at least falls under advertising.However, making it a form of industry wide pricing scheme, that has to be illegal.
(And if it isn't, it should be.
)"I'm sorry mam, according to the index, nobody really likes you, so we have to charge you 3 times as much for that.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418242</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1260620400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work. Almost all classical and neoclassical economic theory assume things like the existence of a supply/demand price curve, availability of pricing information, etc. If you have some nutty system where price curves aren't really defined beyond an individual level, prices aren't widely available, etc., all the usual pricing signals, resource allocation by the "invisible hand", etc., get a lot more muddled, and probably begin to break down.</p></div><p>What<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you mean like in the software market?</p><ul><li>Where there isn't a true supply/demand curve because the supplier can make as many copies of the product as it wants, practically for free?</li><li>Where suppliers regularly negotiate pricing contracts with large customers with the understanding that the customers won't disclose the prices they paid?</li></ul><p>Note the part where TFPA [patent application] specifies:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. The method of claim 1, wherein the product is a <b>digital product</b> of which additional copies can be produced at a nominal cost.</p> </div><p>Is Richard Stallman paranoid when they're really out to get us?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work .
Almost all classical and neoclassical economic theory assume things like the existence of a supply/demand price curve , availability of pricing information , etc .
If you have some nutty system where price curves are n't really defined beyond an individual level , prices are n't widely available , etc. , all the usual pricing signals , resource allocation by the " invisible hand " , etc. , get a lot more muddled , and probably begin to break down.What ... you mean like in the software market ? Where there is n't a true supply/demand curve because the supplier can make as many copies of the product as it wants , practically for free ? Where suppliers regularly negotiate pricing contracts with large customers with the understanding that the customers wo n't disclose the prices they paid ? Note the part where TFPA [ patent application ] specifies : 3 .
The method of claim 1 , wherein the product is a digital product of which additional copies can be produced at a nominal cost .
Is Richard Stallman paranoid when they 're really out to get us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work.
Almost all classical and neoclassical economic theory assume things like the existence of a supply/demand price curve, availability of pricing information, etc.
If you have some nutty system where price curves aren't really defined beyond an individual level, prices aren't widely available, etc., all the usual pricing signals, resource allocation by the "invisible hand", etc., get a lot more muddled, and probably begin to break down.What ... you mean like in the software market?Where there isn't a true supply/demand curve because the supplier can make as many copies of the product as it wants, practically for free?Where suppliers regularly negotiate pricing contracts with large customers with the understanding that the customers won't disclose the prices they paid?Note the part where TFPA [patent application] specifies:3.
The method of claim 1, wherein the product is a digital product of which additional copies can be produced at a nominal cost.
Is Richard Stallman paranoid when they're really out to get us?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417870</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1260617040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in an Internet era, where price information travels rapidly, prices converge towards fixed prices.</p></div><p>Sorry, you're 10 years behind. That's the original theory, but capitalism has since evolved away from the silly "free market" concept.</p><p>Or have you seen the price of Windos "converge" in any meaningful way? Have you missed the article a few stories down about price fixing in the LCD market? The many other examples of price manipulations?</p><p>The thing about this patent is that "price information" itself is manipulated. Your price information is meaningless to me, because I can not get it. When the price information is about different prices on the seller side, we as buyers can go to the cheaper seller. But this patent is about changing prices on the <b>buyer</b> side. There's not a whole lot the buyer can do, and since he doesn't have any market reactions available, there's no converging influence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in an Internet era , where price information travels rapidly , prices converge towards fixed prices.Sorry , you 're 10 years behind .
That 's the original theory , but capitalism has since evolved away from the silly " free market " concept.Or have you seen the price of Windos " converge " in any meaningful way ?
Have you missed the article a few stories down about price fixing in the LCD market ?
The many other examples of price manipulations ? The thing about this patent is that " price information " itself is manipulated .
Your price information is meaningless to me , because I can not get it .
When the price information is about different prices on the seller side , we as buyers can go to the cheaper seller .
But this patent is about changing prices on the buyer side .
There 's not a whole lot the buyer can do , and since he does n't have any market reactions available , there 's no converging influence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in an Internet era, where price information travels rapidly, prices converge towards fixed prices.Sorry, you're 10 years behind.
That's the original theory, but capitalism has since evolved away from the silly "free market" concept.Or have you seen the price of Windos "converge" in any meaningful way?
Have you missed the article a few stories down about price fixing in the LCD market?
The many other examples of price manipulations?The thing about this patent is that "price information" itself is manipulated.
Your price information is meaningless to me, because I can not get it.
When the price information is about different prices on the seller side, we as buyers can go to the cheaper seller.
But this patent is about changing prices on the buyer side.
There's not a whole lot the buyer can do, and since he doesn't have any market reactions available, there's no converging influence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417838</id>
	<title>free stuff ?</title>
	<author>naeone</author>
	<datestamp>1260616800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>for free stuff i use p2p, best marketing tool ever, apart from the sales graph</htmltext>
<tokenext>for free stuff i use p2p , best marketing tool ever , apart from the sales graph</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for free stuff i use p2p, best marketing tool ever, apart from the sales graph</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418724</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260626340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For many people, the price of Windows has converged to "free"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For many people , the price of Windows has converged to " free "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For many people, the price of Windows has converged to "free"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419064</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260631080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right... Prices converge towards fixed prices.  BUT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... look at it this way.</p><p>If you have a trend-setter - one who purchases early and often - the gadget freak who must have everything - you want them to have your gadget in their hand as fast as possible.  The early adopters get a cost break.  Why?  Because they are the ones who sit holy-er-then-thou at the airport thumbing away on the latest IPhone or what ever the flavor of the day may be.</p><p>The second tier are the ones who realize - "everyone has one - I must have one too!"   These guys pay a premium because - well because they are stupid.  The neither need one, nor does everyone have one - but the perceive that they are missing out.</p><p>The last to adopt aren't influencing anyone, but nor are they buying anything that is new in the first year.  They guys are un-interesting as they are shopping solely on price and and will typically do-without if it's too expense.  That's when YOUR formula comes in and the price bottoms out.  It's the first year that is key.</p><p>1. Get the product in use by people who have "influence"<br>2. Maximize the price point - after all the price is only going to drop once it's established.</p><p>I'm not saying this is good.  Just saying that there is rational behind it.</p><p>-CF</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right... Prices converge towards fixed prices .
BUT ... look at it this way.If you have a trend-setter - one who purchases early and often - the gadget freak who must have everything - you want them to have your gadget in their hand as fast as possible .
The early adopters get a cost break .
Why ? Because they are the ones who sit holy-er-then-thou at the airport thumbing away on the latest IPhone or what ever the flavor of the day may be.The second tier are the ones who realize - " everyone has one - I must have one too !
" These guys pay a premium because - well because they are stupid .
The neither need one , nor does everyone have one - but the perceive that they are missing out.The last to adopt are n't influencing anyone , but nor are they buying anything that is new in the first year .
They guys are un-interesting as they are shopping solely on price and and will typically do-without if it 's too expense .
That 's when YOUR formula comes in and the price bottoms out .
It 's the first year that is key.1 .
Get the product in use by people who have " influence " 2 .
Maximize the price point - after all the price is only going to drop once it 's established.I 'm not saying this is good .
Just saying that there is rational behind it.-CF</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right... Prices converge towards fixed prices.
BUT ... look at it this way.If you have a trend-setter - one who purchases early and often - the gadget freak who must have everything - you want them to have your gadget in their hand as fast as possible.
The early adopters get a cost break.
Why?  Because they are the ones who sit holy-er-then-thou at the airport thumbing away on the latest IPhone or what ever the flavor of the day may be.The second tier are the ones who realize - "everyone has one - I must have one too!
"   These guys pay a premium because - well because they are stupid.
The neither need one, nor does everyone have one - but the perceive that they are missing out.The last to adopt aren't influencing anyone, but nor are they buying anything that is new in the first year.
They guys are un-interesting as they are shopping solely on price and and will typically do-without if it's too expense.
That's when YOUR formula comes in and the price bottoms out.
It's the first year that is key.1.
Get the product in use by people who have "influence"2.
Maximize the price point - after all the price is only going to drop once it's established.I'm not saying this is good.
Just saying that there is rational behind it.-CF</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418538</id>
	<title>Re:seems dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260623640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just havent got to the higher levels of econ.  This sort of thing has been known for years.</p><p>However it does not produce maximum profit.  Max profit is provably where the marginal rev of a product = the marginal cost of a product.  In a perfectly competitive environment.</p><p>In a perfectly monopolistic environment this is in a different spot on the curve.</p><p>What they are proposing is attacking every point on the curve.  This will not produce optimum profit (in fact i think it would produce anything but).  As it is open to everyone just getting the cheapest price on the curve.  Either thru gaming the system or being pissed off and just not buying it at all if you 'get screwed'.  Hell you could have 'influencers' buying stuff on the cheap and selling it for 'slightly more' to one rung up.</p><p>This has a possiblity of producing a negative effect on people and associations to your product as a 'rip off'.  Then if you give it away for free to 'influencers' who are more likely to be UP FRONT about what it cost them the 'rip off' becomes more pronounced.</p><p>This, if not done correctly, could have a 'striesend effect' on your product as being either 'cheap junk', or 'too much for what it really is', or open up a secondary 'black market' for your product (the real reason no one bothers to do this).  People once they realize they are being manipulated will turn on you like a pack of rabid dogs.</p><p>The idea is sound.  As apple does it with their selling of 'cool'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just havent got to the higher levels of econ .
This sort of thing has been known for years.However it does not produce maximum profit .
Max profit is provably where the marginal rev of a product = the marginal cost of a product .
In a perfectly competitive environment.In a perfectly monopolistic environment this is in a different spot on the curve.What they are proposing is attacking every point on the curve .
This will not produce optimum profit ( in fact i think it would produce anything but ) .
As it is open to everyone just getting the cheapest price on the curve .
Either thru gaming the system or being pissed off and just not buying it at all if you 'get screwed' .
Hell you could have 'influencers ' buying stuff on the cheap and selling it for 'slightly more ' to one rung up.This has a possiblity of producing a negative effect on people and associations to your product as a 'rip off' .
Then if you give it away for free to 'influencers ' who are more likely to be UP FRONT about what it cost them the 'rip off ' becomes more pronounced.This , if not done correctly , could have a 'striesend effect ' on your product as being either 'cheap junk ' , or 'too much for what it really is ' , or open up a secondary 'black market ' for your product ( the real reason no one bothers to do this ) .
People once they realize they are being manipulated will turn on you like a pack of rabid dogs.The idea is sound .
As apple does it with their selling of 'cool' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just havent got to the higher levels of econ.
This sort of thing has been known for years.However it does not produce maximum profit.
Max profit is provably where the marginal rev of a product = the marginal cost of a product.
In a perfectly competitive environment.In a perfectly monopolistic environment this is in a different spot on the curve.What they are proposing is attacking every point on the curve.
This will not produce optimum profit (in fact i think it would produce anything but).
As it is open to everyone just getting the cheapest price on the curve.
Either thru gaming the system or being pissed off and just not buying it at all if you 'get screwed'.
Hell you could have 'influencers' buying stuff on the cheap and selling it for 'slightly more' to one rung up.This has a possiblity of producing a negative effect on people and associations to your product as a 'rip off'.
Then if you give it away for free to 'influencers' who are more likely to be UP FRONT about what it cost them the 'rip off' becomes more pronounced.This, if not done correctly, could have a 'striesend effect' on your product as being either 'cheap junk', or 'too much for what it really is', or open up a secondary 'black market' for your product (the real reason no one bothers to do this).
People once they realize they are being manipulated will turn on you like a pack of rabid dogs.The idea is sound.
As apple does it with their selling of 'cool'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492</id>
	<title>seems dangerous</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1260614520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work. Almost all classical and neoclassical economic theory assume things like the existence of a supply/demand price curve, availability of pricing information, etc. If you have some nutty system where price curves aren't really defined beyond an individual level, prices aren't widely available, etc., all the usual pricing signals, resource allocation by the "invisible hand", etc., get a lot more muddled, and probably begin to break down.</p><p>Of course, that's certainly a reason I can see Microsoft wanting it: finding ways to profit other than "make a good product and compete fairly on the open market" is their modus operandi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work .
Almost all classical and neoclassical economic theory assume things like the existence of a supply/demand price curve , availability of pricing information , etc .
If you have some nutty system where price curves are n't really defined beyond an individual level , prices are n't widely available , etc. , all the usual pricing signals , resource allocation by the " invisible hand " , etc. , get a lot more muddled , and probably begin to break down.Of course , that 's certainly a reason I can see Microsoft wanting it : finding ways to profit other than " make a good product and compete fairly on the open market " is their modus operandi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work.
Almost all classical and neoclassical economic theory assume things like the existence of a supply/demand price curve, availability of pricing information, etc.
If you have some nutty system where price curves aren't really defined beyond an individual level, prices aren't widely available, etc., all the usual pricing signals, resource allocation by the "invisible hand", etc., get a lot more muddled, and probably begin to break down.Of course, that's certainly a reason I can see Microsoft wanting it: finding ways to profit other than "make a good product and compete fairly on the open market" is their modus operandi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419006</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260630360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They certainly don't.  Even on a relatively closed site like Amazon, people selling the same item offer it at drastically different prices, and Amazon doesn't seem to make even a minor attempt to compete on price except against brick and mortar.  There are no ideal model capitalist systems, not even the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They certainly do n't .
Even on a relatively closed site like Amazon , people selling the same item offer it at drastically different prices , and Amazon does n't seem to make even a minor attempt to compete on price except against brick and mortar .
There are no ideal model capitalist systems , not even the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They certainly don't.
Even on a relatively closed site like Amazon, people selling the same item offer it at drastically different prices, and Amazon doesn't seem to make even a minor attempt to compete on price except against brick and mortar.
There are no ideal model capitalist systems, not even the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418376</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260621900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure there are people with that little influence left in a world that includes cheap internet access, blogs, and social sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure there are people with that little influence left in a world that includes cheap internet access , blogs , and social sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure there are people with that little influence left in a world that includes cheap internet access, blogs, and social sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418146</id>
	<title>Re:Works for me</title>
	<author>gparent</author>
	<datestamp>1260619500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you have friends that can bring their own alcohol and buy their share of pizza, $0?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have friends that can bring their own alcohol and buy their share of pizza , $ 0 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have friends that can bring their own alcohol and buy their share of pizza, $0?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417662</id>
	<title>Re:Works for me</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1260615720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes but how much did you actually spend on said party?  $100? $200.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes but how much did you actually spend on said party ?
$ 100 ? $ 200 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes but how much did you actually spend on said party?
$100? $200.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417672</id>
	<title>Prior art: Any specialty business / "sponsorship"</title>
	<author>BrianRoach</author>
	<datestamp>1260615780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to run a motorcycle performance shop. You do this all the time.  I would often cut deals on accessories / parts to customers I knew would show them off to their friends, talk on the internet, etc, etc. Those people (hopefully) then buy from you at your regular prices.</p><p>When you do it for club racers, it's called "sponsorship"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but it's really the same thing. If you have a fast racer, you help him out based on his "influence" (wins races, is well liked, etc). Regardless if your assistance makes him go faster or not, the perception is: "Fast / winning guy goes to Shop X, I should also go to Shop X". They have influence over their "social network", which is other racers.</p><p>Seriously, I don't see how this is new or innovative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to run a motorcycle performance shop .
You do this all the time .
I would often cut deals on accessories / parts to customers I knew would show them off to their friends , talk on the internet , etc , etc .
Those people ( hopefully ) then buy from you at your regular prices.When you do it for club racers , it 's called " sponsorship " ... but it 's really the same thing .
If you have a fast racer , you help him out based on his " influence " ( wins races , is well liked , etc ) .
Regardless if your assistance makes him go faster or not , the perception is : " Fast / winning guy goes to Shop X , I should also go to Shop X " .
They have influence over their " social network " , which is other racers.Seriously , I do n't see how this is new or innovative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to run a motorcycle performance shop.
You do this all the time.
I would often cut deals on accessories / parts to customers I knew would show them off to their friends, talk on the internet, etc, etc.
Those people (hopefully) then buy from you at your regular prices.When you do it for club racers, it's called "sponsorship" ... but it's really the same thing.
If you have a fast racer, you help him out based on his "influence" (wins races, is well liked, etc).
Regardless if your assistance makes him go faster or not, the perception is: "Fast / winning guy goes to Shop X, I should also go to Shop X".
They have influence over their "social network", which is other racers.Seriously, I don't see how this is new or innovative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417958</id>
	<title>Re:There's only one thing to do!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260617760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see the reason for this post to be tagged as 'Funny'. Insightful, or at least Interesting.</p><p>It's a perfectly valid procedure (or at least until they start sending DMCA takedown notices, even though it's outside DMCA scope).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see the reason for this post to be tagged as 'Funny' .
Insightful , or at least Interesting.It 's a perfectly valid procedure ( or at least until they start sending DMCA takedown notices , even though it 's outside DMCA scope ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see the reason for this post to be tagged as 'Funny'.
Insightful, or at least Interesting.It's a perfectly valid procedure (or at least until they start sending DMCA takedown notices, even though it's outside DMCA scope).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420024</id>
	<title>Re:Already an established business practice</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1260639780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole article is just a trick to get a rise out of people by spinning "promotional discounts for influential people" as "price gouging the powerless."  So which is it really?  I'd argue, it's all in the numbers; if they're picking out a small percentage of disadvantaged people for a high price, that is gouging.  But if they're picking out a small percentage of opinion leaders for a low price, that is a discount.  And I'm guessing it's the latter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole article is just a trick to get a rise out of people by spinning " promotional discounts for influential people " as " price gouging the powerless .
" So which is it really ?
I 'd argue , it 's all in the numbers ; if they 're picking out a small percentage of disadvantaged people for a high price , that is gouging .
But if they 're picking out a small percentage of opinion leaders for a low price , that is a discount .
And I 'm guessing it 's the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole article is just a trick to get a rise out of people by spinning "promotional discounts for influential people" as "price gouging the powerless.
"  So which is it really?
I'd argue, it's all in the numbers; if they're picking out a small percentage of disadvantaged people for a high price, that is gouging.
But if they're picking out a small percentage of opinion leaders for a low price, that is a discount.
And I'm guessing it's the latter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417686</id>
	<title>Already an established business practice</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1260615840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they've wrapping it in a new packing, but this doesn't seem very different from the way it's always been - you have those who pay full price, those who get rebates, those who get promotional copies for free and those you have to sponsor, that is to say pay just to use your product and it's all a sliding scale. Like a friend of mine, he's often organizing dinners and such and when he's there alone items will "disappear" off the bill. Why? Because he'll be bringing in a bunch of people who'll spend a lot of money. A colleague of mine used to be quite good at his sport, he's not good enough they'd sponsor him anymore but if he asks he'll always get a "special price" because there's a value to having a veteran walking around in that brand. This sort of stuff happens all the time, and it's been done a million different ways of referrer discounts up to and including MLM schemes where it doesn't just get cheaper there's money flowing out at the top. This just seem like a slightly more organized version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they 've wrapping it in a new packing , but this does n't seem very different from the way it 's always been - you have those who pay full price , those who get rebates , those who get promotional copies for free and those you have to sponsor , that is to say pay just to use your product and it 's all a sliding scale .
Like a friend of mine , he 's often organizing dinners and such and when he 's there alone items will " disappear " off the bill .
Why ? Because he 'll be bringing in a bunch of people who 'll spend a lot of money .
A colleague of mine used to be quite good at his sport , he 's not good enough they 'd sponsor him anymore but if he asks he 'll always get a " special price " because there 's a value to having a veteran walking around in that brand .
This sort of stuff happens all the time , and it 's been done a million different ways of referrer discounts up to and including MLM schemes where it does n't just get cheaper there 's money flowing out at the top .
This just seem like a slightly more organized version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they've wrapping it in a new packing, but this doesn't seem very different from the way it's always been - you have those who pay full price, those who get rebates, those who get promotional copies for free and those you have to sponsor, that is to say pay just to use your product and it's all a sliding scale.
Like a friend of mine, he's often organizing dinners and such and when he's there alone items will "disappear" off the bill.
Why? Because he'll be bringing in a bunch of people who'll spend a lot of money.
A colleague of mine used to be quite good at his sport, he's not good enough they'd sponsor him anymore but if he asks he'll always get a "special price" because there's a value to having a veteran walking around in that brand.
This sort of stuff happens all the time, and it's been done a million different ways of referrer discounts up to and including MLM schemes where it doesn't just get cheaper there's money flowing out at the top.
This just seem like a slightly more organized version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417762</id>
	<title>Yay!</title>
	<author>arun84h</author>
	<datestamp>1260616320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only 5000 more rep and I'll be exalted with the Microsoft faction!  Discounts abound!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 5000 more rep and I 'll be exalted with the Microsoft faction !
Discounts abound !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 5000 more rep and I'll be exalted with the Microsoft faction!
Discounts abound!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30426990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30434320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30422672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_1942207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30434320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30426990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30419056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_1942207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30420094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30422672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30417944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30418242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_1942207.30421672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
