<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_01_180243</id>
	<title>Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267472880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>justice4all writes to share that some of the recent complaints to the European Commission about Google have apparently been <a href="http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/microsoft-was-behind-google-complaints-to-ec-5555">coming from Microsoft</a>.  <i>"A lawyer for Microsoft confirmed that the software giant told the US Department of Justice and the European Commission how Google&rsquo;s business practices may be harming publishers, advertisers and competition in search and online advertising. [...] 'Google&rsquo;s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google. These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up. Microsoft&rsquo;s well-received Bing search engine is addressing this challenge by offering innovations in areas that are less dependent on volume. But Bing needs to gain volume too, in order to increase the relevance of search results for less common search terms.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>justice4all writes to share that some of the recent complaints to the European Commission about Google have apparently been coming from Microsoft .
" A lawyer for Microsoft confirmed that the software giant told the US Department of Justice and the European Commission how Google    s business practices may be harming publishers , advertisers and competition in search and online advertising .
[ ... ] 'Google    s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google .
These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up .
Microsoft    s well-received Bing search engine is addressing this challenge by offering innovations in areas that are less dependent on volume .
But Bing needs to gain volume too , in order to increase the relevance of search results for less common search terms .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>justice4all writes to share that some of the recent complaints to the European Commission about Google have apparently been coming from Microsoft.
"A lawyer for Microsoft confirmed that the software giant told the US Department of Justice and the European Commission how Google’s business practices may be harming publishers, advertisers and competition in search and online advertising.
[...] 'Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.
These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up.
Microsoft’s well-received Bing search engine is addressing this challenge by offering innovations in areas that are less dependent on volume.
But Bing needs to gain volume too, in order to increase the relevance of search results for less common search terms.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31328846</id>
	<title>Sauce for the goose...</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1267540080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft whines: <i>These and other network effects make it hard for competing <b>search engines</b> to catch up.</i>
<p>
Google should respond: <i>These and other network effects make it hard for competing <b>operating systems</b> to catch up.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft whines : These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up .
Google should respond : These and other network effects make it hard for competing operating systems to catch up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft whines: These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up.
Google should respond: These and other network effects make it hard for competing operating systems to catch up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321794</id>
	<title>Kind of ironic...</title>
	<author>joeyblades</author>
	<datestamp>1267437060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... that Microsoft would complain about this since, in most other software realms, Microsoft gets to play the part of the 800 pound gorilla.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... that Microsoft would complain about this since , in most other software realms , Microsoft gets to play the part of the 800 pound gorilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that Microsoft would complain about this since, in most other software realms, Microsoft gets to play the part of the 800 pound gorilla.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321912</id>
	<title>Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!</title>
	<author>VGR</author>
	<datestamp>1267437480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>4) Promoted with <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/08/the-perils-of-fui-fake-user-interface.html" title="codinghorror.com">Fake</a> [codinghorror.com] <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/12/04/who\_will\_rid\_us/" title="theregister.co.uk">User Interface</a> [theregister.co.uk] ads.

<p>I instinctively assume anything that needs to use underhanded advertising must not be able to stand on its merits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 ) Promoted with Fake [ codinghorror.com ] User Interface [ theregister.co.uk ] ads .
I instinctively assume anything that needs to use underhanded advertising must not be able to stand on its merits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4) Promoted with Fake [codinghorror.com] User Interface [theregister.co.uk] ads.
I instinctively assume anything that needs to use underhanded advertising must not be able to stand on its merits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321362</id>
	<title>Re:Own Medicine?</title>
	<author>TeXMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1267435680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Other OSs have a similar problem as Windows is such a huge market that many commercial app developers will restrict their products to only windows releases. And users choose (well.. in some cases atleast) the OS with the most apps, and on and on it goes.</p><p>Seems to be the same problem in search. Google has millions of data points of search terms co-related with the link that was clicked and all that data has trained their algorithm such that any competing algorithm would find it very hard to catch up.</p></div><p>There's a substantial difference on the way the monopoly was achieved (anti-competitive tactics vs better quality).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other OSs have a similar problem as Windows is such a huge market that many commercial app developers will restrict their products to only windows releases .
And users choose ( well.. in some cases atleast ) the OS with the most apps , and on and on it goes.Seems to be the same problem in search .
Google has millions of data points of search terms co-related with the link that was clicked and all that data has trained their algorithm such that any competing algorithm would find it very hard to catch up.There 's a substantial difference on the way the monopoly was achieved ( anti-competitive tactics vs better quality ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other OSs have a similar problem as Windows is such a huge market that many commercial app developers will restrict their products to only windows releases.
And users choose (well.. in some cases atleast) the OS with the most apps, and on and on it goes.Seems to be the same problem in search.
Google has millions of data points of search terms co-related with the link that was clicked and all that data has trained their algorithm such that any competing algorithm would find it very hard to catch up.There's a substantial difference on the way the monopoly was achieved (anti-competitive tactics vs better quality).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321994</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense really</title>
	<author>bheerssen</author>
	<datestamp>1267437840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shorter Microsoft: Waaaahhhh!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shorter Microsoft : Waaaahhhh ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shorter Microsoft: Waaaahhhh!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320834</id>
	<title>Stupid headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267476900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Google Complaints" is that a new feature from Google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Google Complaints " is that a new feature from Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Google Complaints" is that a new feature from Google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320810</id>
	<title>Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267476840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...'Google's algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.</p></div><p>So the problem is that Google is more successful because more people use it, or people who need to search for hard to find things use it more?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...'Google 's algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.So the problem is that Google is more successful because more people use it , or people who need to search for hard to find things use it more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...'Google's algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.So the problem is that Google is more successful because more people use it, or people who need to search for hard to find things use it more?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321774</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1267437000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some less common search terms which make me not use Bing:
<br> <br>
Firefox, Chrome, Chromium, Linux, SuSE, RedHat, Debian, Solaris, AIX, BIND, DHCPD, LikeWise, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Ruby, Python, Perl, bash, posix, Integrated Development Environmnet, C programming, and anything else that Microsoft makes a (competing) product for.
<br> <br>I trust Microsoft's search engine to only to return results that are relevant to their products.  I trust Google's product to find the right answers, regardless of whether or not they make a competing (and often free to use) product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some less common search terms which make me not use Bing : Firefox , Chrome , Chromium , Linux , SuSE , RedHat , Debian , Solaris , AIX , BIND , DHCPD , LikeWise , Oracle , MySQL , PostgreSQL , Ruby , Python , Perl , bash , posix , Integrated Development Environmnet , C programming , and anything else that Microsoft makes a ( competing ) product for .
I trust Microsoft 's search engine to only to return results that are relevant to their products .
I trust Google 's product to find the right answers , regardless of whether or not they make a competing ( and often free to use ) product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some less common search terms which make me not use Bing:
 
Firefox, Chrome, Chromium, Linux, SuSE, RedHat, Debian, Solaris, AIX, BIND, DHCPD, LikeWise, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Ruby, Python, Perl, bash, posix, Integrated Development Environmnet, C programming, and anything else that Microsoft makes a (competing) product for.
I trust Microsoft's search engine to only to return results that are relevant to their products.
I trust Google's product to find the right answers, regardless of whether or not they make a competing (and often free to use) product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321240</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267435200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Over the past few months Microsoft, too, has met with the DOJ and the European Commission. The subject of our meetings has been the competition law review, now completed, of the search partnership between Yahoo! and Microsoft. As you might expect, the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google--since that is the focus of the partnership. <b>We told them what we know about how Google is doing business.</b> </p></div><p>What does Google's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo! merger?</p></div><p>That's something you have to ask from DoJ. They probably wanted to make sure it doesn't create unfair competition against Google. Microsoft replied by saying Google has a huge advantage already as they have so large marketshare to datamine from. Note that they didn't complain as this story seems to suggest - they merely replied to DoJ's concerns about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the past few months Microsoft , too , has met with the DOJ and the European Commission .
The subject of our meetings has been the competition law review , now completed , of the search partnership between Yahoo !
and Microsoft .
As you might expect , the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google--since that is the focus of the partnership .
We told them what we know about how Google is doing business .
What does Google 's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo !
merger ? That 's something you have to ask from DoJ .
They probably wanted to make sure it does n't create unfair competition against Google .
Microsoft replied by saying Google has a huge advantage already as they have so large marketshare to datamine from .
Note that they did n't complain as this story seems to suggest - they merely replied to DoJ 's concerns about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the past few months Microsoft, too, has met with the DOJ and the European Commission.
The subject of our meetings has been the competition law review, now completed, of the search partnership between Yahoo!
and Microsoft.
As you might expect, the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google--since that is the focus of the partnership.
We told them what we know about how Google is doing business.
What does Google's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo!
merger?That's something you have to ask from DoJ.
They probably wanted to make sure it doesn't create unfair competition against Google.
Microsoft replied by saying Google has a huge advantage already as they have so large marketshare to datamine from.
Note that they didn't complain as this story seems to suggest - they merely replied to DoJ's concerns about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31333156</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267558620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I did a quick search on Google and Ciao didn't come up.</p><p>Oh wait!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But ... I did a quick search on Google and Ciao did n't come up.Oh wait !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But ... I did a quick search on Google and Ciao didn't come up.Oh wait!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322954</id>
	<title>Foundem again its a low quality affilaite site</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1267441380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>any one who works in search knows that Foundem and Caio are thin afilates with low quality sites - all foundem et al are trying to do is to become middlemen and take a cut of shopping on the internet - also its rumored that the Foundem founders are mates with some highups  in the Uk paper industry which is why a low quaity site gets such good press.

Most people hate this sort of crap that infest the SERPS I used to work for a Big electronics mega store that had been going for 25+ years and there serps where full of thease "comparison engines" in a sensible serps page 1 should have mostly real suppliers not 90\% junk comparison sites.

Its particular industrys that have traditionaly used midlemen that are having difculty in adapting and its no surprise that thease sectors are infested with spam and black hats Insurance is particularly bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>any one who works in search knows that Foundem and Caio are thin afilates with low quality sites - all foundem et al are trying to do is to become middlemen and take a cut of shopping on the internet - also its rumored that the Foundem founders are mates with some highups in the Uk paper industry which is why a low quaity site gets such good press .
Most people hate this sort of crap that infest the SERPS I used to work for a Big electronics mega store that had been going for 25 + years and there serps where full of thease " comparison engines " in a sensible serps page 1 should have mostly real suppliers not 90 \ % junk comparison sites .
Its particular industrys that have traditionaly used midlemen that are having difculty in adapting and its no surprise that thease sectors are infested with spam and black hats Insurance is particularly bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>any one who works in search knows that Foundem and Caio are thin afilates with low quality sites - all foundem et al are trying to do is to become middlemen and take a cut of shopping on the internet - also its rumored that the Foundem founders are mates with some highups  in the Uk paper industry which is why a low quaity site gets such good press.
Most people hate this sort of crap that infest the SERPS I used to work for a Big electronics mega store that had been going for 25+ years and there serps where full of thease "comparison engines" in a sensible serps page 1 should have mostly real suppliers not 90\% junk comparison sites.
Its particular industrys that have traditionaly used midlemen that are having difculty in adapting and its no surprise that thease sectors are infested with spam and black hats Insurance is particularly bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31328138</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense really</title>
	<author>Pigskin-Referee</author>
	<datestamp>1267531560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It makes sense alright.  It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google's side as possible.  The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws?  Please!  Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market?  Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act?  Absurd.</p></div><p>Really now. Well, led by Opera, web browser developers have beat a trail to the EC complaining about IE's dominance in the browsing department. According to your statement, Microsoft should be exempt from handing over its source code or creating API's for other OSs. You would probably disagree. Personally, I believe in a totally free market. Institutions like the EC are nothing more that a socialist attempt to level the playing field for inferior products. They, like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act are a dinosaur in a modern age.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes sense alright .
It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they 've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google 's side as possible .
The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws ?
Please ! Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it 's anti-trust that I can not enter the automobile market ?
Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act ?
Absurd.Really now .
Well , led by Opera , web browser developers have beat a trail to the EC complaining about IE 's dominance in the browsing department .
According to your statement , Microsoft should be exempt from handing over its source code or creating API 's for other OSs .
You would probably disagree .
Personally , I believe in a totally free market .
Institutions like the EC are nothing more that a socialist attempt to level the playing field for inferior products .
They , like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act are a dinosaur in a modern age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes sense alright.
It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google's side as possible.
The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws?
Please!  Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market?
Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act?
Absurd.Really now.
Well, led by Opera, web browser developers have beat a trail to the EC complaining about IE's dominance in the browsing department.
According to your statement, Microsoft should be exempt from handing over its source code or creating API's for other OSs.
You would probably disagree.
Personally, I believe in a totally free market.
Institutions like the EC are nothing more that a socialist attempt to level the playing field for inferior products.
They, like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act are a dinosaur in a modern age.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31329036</id>
	<title>Oh wow!</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1267541280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like they are really going to take them seriously now, I mean, talk about being sore losers. They didn't get their bing fr their buck (pardon the pun), so now they want to shoot google down any which way they can, sad really, can't even come up with something original, let's come out with a search engine, 15 years too late, then when it does not fly, cry to mommy!<br>I hate M$ today, too bad Gates is gone, I wonder is this really would have been his strategy....i think he was always more interested<br>in bringing good innovation to light, not so much cry about it when they couldn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like they are really going to take them seriously now , I mean , talk about being sore losers .
They did n't get their bing fr their buck ( pardon the pun ) , so now they want to shoot google down any which way they can , sad really , ca n't even come up with something original , let 's come out with a search engine , 15 years too late , then when it does not fly , cry to mommy ! I hate M $ today , too bad Gates is gone , I wonder is this really would have been his strategy....i think he was always more interestedin bringing good innovation to light , not so much cry about it when they could n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like they are really going to take them seriously now, I mean, talk about being sore losers.
They didn't get their bing fr their buck (pardon the pun), so now they want to shoot google down any which way they can, sad really, can't even come up with something original, let's come out with a search engine, 15 years too late, then when it does not fly, cry to mommy!I hate M$ today, too bad Gates is gone, I wonder is this really would have been his strategy....i think he was always more interestedin bringing good innovation to light, not so much cry about it when they couldn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321458</id>
	<title>Re:Google make me nervous</title>
	<author>astrashe</author>
	<datestamp>1267435920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft had a really bullying culture back in the day -- when everyone was locked in, they seemed to really enjoy turning the screws.  They were almost like villains from comic books or something.</p><p>But Windows was always comparatively open -- they have the most open of all the proprietary ecosystems.  You can write you own programs and install them wihtout anyone's permission, you data lives on your disk, and anyone can write a device driver.  It's more open than OS X (which only runs on Apple's hardware), and it's a lot more open than platforms like the iPhone/iPad, which only run programs Apple approves.</p><p>When Google released Buzz, it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly, they'd be able to, and we'd have no recourse.  With software on your own computer, you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.</p><p>It would be great if MS started pushing their openness as a selling point, and if they differentiated themselves from google in the cloud by being scrupulously responsible with our data.  For example, I'd love to see MS roll out a privacy enhanced Bing -- no records kept, no targeted ads, for $10/month (or whatever).</p><p>Gmail won't even put marker tags in the Gmail HTML that would make it easier for FireGPG (a firefox plugin that supports GPG encrypted mail) to parse your mails, so FireGPG breaks all the time.  They should do that instead of making empty threats to pull out of China.</p><p>The power concentrated in all of these companies is pretty troubling.  Google at least has the sense not to be flamboyantly abusive with their power.  Microsoft used to be almost theatrical in their bullying.  That's dogging them now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft had a really bullying culture back in the day -- when everyone was locked in , they seemed to really enjoy turning the screws .
They were almost like villains from comic books or something.But Windows was always comparatively open -- they have the most open of all the proprietary ecosystems .
You can write you own programs and install them wihtout anyone 's permission , you data lives on your disk , and anyone can write a device driver .
It 's more open than OS X ( which only runs on Apple 's hardware ) , and it 's a lot more open than platforms like the iPhone/iPad , which only run programs Apple approves.When Google released Buzz , it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly , they 'd be able to , and we 'd have no recourse .
With software on your own computer , you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.It would be great if MS started pushing their openness as a selling point , and if they differentiated themselves from google in the cloud by being scrupulously responsible with our data .
For example , I 'd love to see MS roll out a privacy enhanced Bing -- no records kept , no targeted ads , for $ 10/month ( or whatever ) .Gmail wo n't even put marker tags in the Gmail HTML that would make it easier for FireGPG ( a firefox plugin that supports GPG encrypted mail ) to parse your mails , so FireGPG breaks all the time .
They should do that instead of making empty threats to pull out of China.The power concentrated in all of these companies is pretty troubling .
Google at least has the sense not to be flamboyantly abusive with their power .
Microsoft used to be almost theatrical in their bullying .
That 's dogging them now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft had a really bullying culture back in the day -- when everyone was locked in, they seemed to really enjoy turning the screws.
They were almost like villains from comic books or something.But Windows was always comparatively open -- they have the most open of all the proprietary ecosystems.
You can write you own programs and install them wihtout anyone's permission, you data lives on your disk, and anyone can write a device driver.
It's more open than OS X (which only runs on Apple's hardware), and it's a lot more open than platforms like the iPhone/iPad, which only run programs Apple approves.When Google released Buzz, it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly, they'd be able to, and we'd have no recourse.
With software on your own computer, you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.It would be great if MS started pushing their openness as a selling point, and if they differentiated themselves from google in the cloud by being scrupulously responsible with our data.
For example, I'd love to see MS roll out a privacy enhanced Bing -- no records kept, no targeted ads, for $10/month (or whatever).Gmail won't even put marker tags in the Gmail HTML that would make it easier for FireGPG (a firefox plugin that supports GPG encrypted mail) to parse your mails, so FireGPG breaks all the time.
They should do that instead of making empty threats to pull out of China.The power concentrated in all of these companies is pretty troubling.
Google at least has the sense not to be flamboyantly abusive with their power.
Microsoft used to be almost theatrical in their bullying.
That's dogging them now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321648</id>
	<title>Anticompetitive behivour?</title>
	<author>twoallbeefpatties</author>
	<datestamp>1267436640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has Google participated in any actions that deliberately force their rivals out of the market?  Or have they acted in any manner that abuses their position as a majority holder, such as configuring their systems to deliberately work more slowly with competing products?  I mean, I certainly appreciate the concerns being raised as to what happens when one company has that much market saturation, but I think that a company has to conspire to do something illegally before they can be busted up.  I don't think that just being the major player makes you eligible for antitrust regulation.  (For example, I would think we would've busted up Ticketmaster for much worse by now.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Google participated in any actions that deliberately force their rivals out of the market ?
Or have they acted in any manner that abuses their position as a majority holder , such as configuring their systems to deliberately work more slowly with competing products ?
I mean , I certainly appreciate the concerns being raised as to what happens when one company has that much market saturation , but I think that a company has to conspire to do something illegally before they can be busted up .
I do n't think that just being the major player makes you eligible for antitrust regulation .
( For example , I would think we would 've busted up Ticketmaster for much worse by now .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Google participated in any actions that deliberately force their rivals out of the market?
Or have they acted in any manner that abuses their position as a majority holder, such as configuring their systems to deliberately work more slowly with competing products?
I mean, I certainly appreciate the concerns being raised as to what happens when one company has that much market saturation, but I think that a company has to conspire to do something illegally before they can be busted up.
I don't think that just being the major player makes you eligible for antitrust regulation.
(For example, I would think we would've busted up Ticketmaster for much worse by now.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31331696</id>
	<title>To paraphrase ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267553520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>many more people are using Micro$oft's desktop, office suite, and directory,  which makes it hard for others to compete, so anti-trust legislation should stop them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>many more people are using Micro $ oft 's desktop , office suite , and directory , which makes it hard for others to compete , so anti-trust legislation should stop them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>many more people are using Micro$oft's desktop, office suite, and directory,  which makes it hard for others to compete, so anti-trust legislation should stop them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894</id>
	<title>"Well Recieved" my foot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267477140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I staunchly refuse to use Bing.</p><p>Here is why:</p><p>1) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice (EG, Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal, many others.)</p><p>2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose. If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.</p><p>3) Stinks heavily of yet another embrace and extend tactic, "now with 100\% More FUD!"</p><p>In short, Microsoft's Bing is only on the radar because microsoft has dropped shitpiles of money into promotion.  It really doesn't matter to me if it actually works or not; the reasons for it's creation had nothing to do with innovation, and everything to do with disruptive "I want my share too!"</p><p>As such, I refuse to use Bing, and I would think many other people would get tired of being bombarded with BING! every time they look for something on a M$ partnered site. I know I grew VERY tired of it when I was helping a friend of mine look for real estate lately; MS had partnered with the realestate brokerage to forbid closeup viewing of the property with highres sat images from Bing's mapping feature, without first greasing the pockets of the Realtor.  I have experienced other forms of "Evil" from MS Bing, and am now firmly against ever supporting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I staunchly refuse to use Bing.Here is why : 1 ) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice ( EG , Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal , many others .
) 2 ) Created expressly to " Stop Google " , rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose .
If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at , then I would consider it useful.3 ) Stinks heavily of yet another embrace and extend tactic , " now with 100 \ % More FUD !
" In short , Microsoft 's Bing is only on the radar because microsoft has dropped shitpiles of money into promotion .
It really does n't matter to me if it actually works or not ; the reasons for it 's creation had nothing to do with innovation , and everything to do with disruptive " I want my share too !
" As such , I refuse to use Bing , and I would think many other people would get tired of being bombarded with BING !
every time they look for something on a M $ partnered site .
I know I grew VERY tired of it when I was helping a friend of mine look for real estate lately ; MS had partnered with the realestate brokerage to forbid closeup viewing of the property with highres sat images from Bing 's mapping feature , without first greasing the pockets of the Realtor .
I have experienced other forms of " Evil " from MS Bing , and am now firmly against ever supporting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I staunchly refuse to use Bing.Here is why:1) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice (EG, Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal, many others.
)2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose.
If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.3) Stinks heavily of yet another embrace and extend tactic, "now with 100\% More FUD!
"In short, Microsoft's Bing is only on the radar because microsoft has dropped shitpiles of money into promotion.
It really doesn't matter to me if it actually works or not; the reasons for it's creation had nothing to do with innovation, and everything to do with disruptive "I want my share too!
"As such, I refuse to use Bing, and I would think many other people would get tired of being bombarded with BING!
every time they look for something on a M$ partnered site.
I know I grew VERY tired of it when I was helping a friend of mine look for real estate lately; MS had partnered with the realestate brokerage to forbid closeup viewing of the property with highres sat images from Bing's mapping feature, without first greasing the pockets of the Realtor.
I have experienced other forms of "Evil" from MS Bing, and am now firmly against ever supporting it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321434</id>
	<title>Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267435860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice (EG, Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal, many others.)</p></div><p>You mean sort of like google and Android? Or google and the iphone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice ( EG , Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal , many others .
) You mean sort of like google and Android ?
Or google and the iphone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice (EG, Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal, many others.
)You mean sort of like google and Android?
Or google and the iphone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324256</id>
	<title>Re:Google make me nervous</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1267447440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft had a really bullying culture back in the day</p></div><p>WTF? How does Microsoft have less a bullying culture now? Try reading groklaw.net or boycottnovell.com, hardly a day goes by that msft has not started some new scam. Msft is all about astroturfing, patent trolling, bribing government officials, fake "studies" or other such "Tonya Harding" tactics (those are words of US federal judge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft had a really bullying culture back in the dayWTF ?
How does Microsoft have less a bullying culture now ?
Try reading groklaw.net or boycottnovell.com , hardly a day goes by that msft has not started some new scam .
Msft is all about astroturfing , patent trolling , bribing government officials , fake " studies " or other such " Tonya Harding " tactics ( those are words of US federal judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft had a really bullying culture back in the dayWTF?
How does Microsoft have less a bullying culture now?
Try reading groklaw.net or boycottnovell.com, hardly a day goes by that msft has not started some new scam.
Msft is all about astroturfing, patent trolling, bribing government officials, fake "studies" or other such "Tonya Harding" tactics (those are words of US federal judge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321910</id>
	<title>all hail</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1267437480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>cutthroat bitches!</htmltext>
<tokenext>cutthroat bitches !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cutthroat bitches!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324574</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, how about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267449240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will never happen.  This kind of proprietary data is valuable for a reason.  That would be like a company releasing their list of buyers, or secret formulas.  It is what Google's business is built on.  I am sure they would lease this info to you if the price was right, but free, never.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will never happen .
This kind of proprietary data is valuable for a reason .
That would be like a company releasing their list of buyers , or secret formulas .
It is what Google 's business is built on .
I am sure they would lease this info to you if the price was right , but free , never .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will never happen.
This kind of proprietary data is valuable for a reason.
That would be like a company releasing their list of buyers, or secret formulas.
It is what Google's business is built on.
I am sure they would lease this info to you if the price was right, but free, never.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321924</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267437540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, pretty much a case of "Google are bad because we suck - waawaa it's not fair, make it better mommy - pleeeeease!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , pretty much a case of " Google are bad because we suck - waawaa it 's not fair , make it better mommy - pleeeeease !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, pretty much a case of "Google are bad because we suck - waawaa it's not fair, make it better mommy - pleeeeease!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321382</id>
	<title>Doesn't google provide search statistics?</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1267435740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All Microsoft needs to do is look at what Google's most common searches are (perhaps even look at Google's auto completes) and they have the data refined from having more customers.<br>
<br>
Oh, this doesn't provide Microsoft an advantage over Google you say?  Tough...</htmltext>
<tokenext>All Microsoft needs to do is look at what Google 's most common searches are ( perhaps even look at Google 's auto completes ) and they have the data refined from having more customers .
Oh , this does n't provide Microsoft an advantage over Google you say ?
Tough.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Microsoft needs to do is look at what Google's most common searches are (perhaps even look at Google's auto completes) and they have the data refined from having more customers.
Oh, this doesn't provide Microsoft an advantage over Google you say?
Tough...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321196</id>
	<title>Join the Tautology club</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1267435080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google's algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.</p></div><p>Google is better because Google is better?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.Google is better because Google is better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.Google is better because Google is better?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320908</id>
	<title>Ok, how about this</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1267434000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about force all search engines release search statistical data to the public.   That kind of information is extremely valuable, not just to search companies, but to marketing companies too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about force all search engines release search statistical data to the public .
That kind of information is extremely valuable , not just to search companies , but to marketing companies too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about force all search engines release search statistical data to the public.
That kind of information is extremely valuable, not just to search companies, but to marketing companies too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31323212</id>
	<title>Re:Which side is their delusion buttered on?</title>
	<author>Archrage</author>
	<datestamp>1267442400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, it does seem like that is the case.  I strongly agree with what you said.  It seems like M$ is taking the approach that since Google is so much better at being a search engine than their Bing, they decided to try semi-shadaly to push the fact that more people use google which helps give them better results, even if this isn't true.
 I wish more people would stop taking the idea of "Hey X guys makes Y product well, so lets take Y, add our own spin to it, and sell it as something so much better" and in microsofts cause, find ways to complain about the original group X to help their product.
But hey, i may be missing some major point and could be all wrong, its just my point of view on this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , it does seem like that is the case .
I strongly agree with what you said .
It seems like M $ is taking the approach that since Google is so much better at being a search engine than their Bing , they decided to try semi-shadaly to push the fact that more people use google which helps give them better results , even if this is n't true .
I wish more people would stop taking the idea of " Hey X guys makes Y product well , so lets take Y , add our own spin to it , and sell it as something so much better " and in microsofts cause , find ways to complain about the original group X to help their product .
But hey , i may be missing some major point and could be all wrong , its just my point of view on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, it does seem like that is the case.
I strongly agree with what you said.
It seems like M$ is taking the approach that since Google is so much better at being a search engine than their Bing, they decided to try semi-shadaly to push the fact that more people use google which helps give them better results, even if this isn't true.
I wish more people would stop taking the idea of "Hey X guys makes Y product well, so lets take Y, add our own spin to it, and sell it as something so much better" and in microsofts cause, find ways to complain about the original group X to help their product.
But hey, i may be missing some major point and could be all wrong, its just my point of view on this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325938</id>
	<title>Re:Google make me nervous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267460160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When Google released Buzz, it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly, they'd be able to, and we'd have no recourse. With software on your own computer, you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.</p></div><p>Except, of course, GMail works with POP and IMAP so you <em>can</em> run your own software on your own computer, in fact you can run pretty much any e-mail program because it does a reasonable job of adhering to open published standards, unlike MS's e-mail offerings.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Google released Buzz , it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly , they 'd be able to , and we 'd have no recourse .
With software on your own computer , you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.Except , of course , GMail works with POP and IMAP so you can run your own software on your own computer , in fact you can run pretty much any e-mail program because it does a reasonable job of adhering to open published standards , unlike MS 's e-mail offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Google released Buzz, it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly, they'd be able to, and we'd have no recourse.
With software on your own computer, you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.Except, of course, GMail works with POP and IMAP so you can run your own software on your own computer, in fact you can run pretty much any e-mail program because it does a reasonable job of adhering to open published standards, unlike MS's e-mail offerings.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322144</id>
	<title>Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1267438500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose. If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.</i> <br> <br>A blade that cuts both ways... if it succeeds in 'stopping google' they will no longer have a reason to improve it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) Created expressly to " Stop Google " , rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose .
If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at , then I would consider it useful .
A blade that cuts both ways... if it succeeds in 'stopping google ' they will no longer have a reason to improve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose.
If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.
A blade that cuts both ways... if it succeeds in 'stopping google' they will no longer have a reason to improve it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321786</id>
	<title>Re:For once the system works</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1267437000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Google isn't using their monopoly to limit customer choice!  Have we really forgotten what the purpose of anti-trust laws are!?  Having the majority of the market share is <b>not</b> against anti-trust laws.  Using that market share to stiffle competition is.  Using your market share to improve <b>your</b> project is not stifling the competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Google is n't using their monopoly to limit customer choice !
Have we really forgotten what the purpose of anti-trust laws are ! ?
Having the majority of the market share is not against anti-trust laws .
Using that market share to stiffle competition is .
Using your market share to improve your project is not stifling the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Google isn't using their monopoly to limit customer choice!
Have we really forgotten what the purpose of anti-trust laws are!?
Having the majority of the market share is not against anti-trust laws.
Using that market share to stiffle competition is.
Using your market share to improve your project is not stifling the competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322618</id>
	<title>Microsoft offers browser choices to Europeans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267440240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someday:</p><p>Google offers search choices to Europeans</p><p>Seriously, Nobody can move in on Microsoft's Desktop OS monopoly due to compatibility reasons, and nobody can move in on Google's monopoly due to the fact that distributive learning is more powerful than any algorithm a competitor can write. Perhaps competitors should be allowed to purchase this data to give them a fair chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someday : Google offers search choices to EuropeansSeriously , Nobody can move in on Microsoft 's Desktop OS monopoly due to compatibility reasons , and nobody can move in on Google 's monopoly due to the fact that distributive learning is more powerful than any algorithm a competitor can write .
Perhaps competitors should be allowed to purchase this data to give them a fair chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someday:Google offers search choices to EuropeansSeriously, Nobody can move in on Microsoft's Desktop OS monopoly due to compatibility reasons, and nobody can move in on Google's monopoly due to the fact that distributive learning is more powerful than any algorithm a competitor can write.
Perhaps competitors should be allowed to purchase this data to give them a fair chance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325268</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267454340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Small companies are complaining that larger companies with more customers can buy in bulk which gives them bigger discounts and more negotiating power.  Oh the horror....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Small companies are complaining that larger companies with more customers can buy in bulk which gives them bigger discounts and more negotiating power .
Oh the horror... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Small companies are complaining that larger companies with more customers can buy in bulk which gives them bigger discounts and more negotiating power.
Oh the horror....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321808</id>
	<title>Microsoft can't win...</title>
	<author>CFBMoo1</author>
	<datestamp>1267437120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Googles pages just seem less noisy then the ones Microsoft Bing conjures up. I'm talking look and feel for me more then the actual search results. I noticed my eyes drifted off the search results to the side bar and the header at the top which seemed more distracting then helpful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Googles pages just seem less noisy then the ones Microsoft Bing conjures up .
I 'm talking look and feel for me more then the actual search results .
I noticed my eyes drifted off the search results to the side bar and the header at the top which seemed more distracting then helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Googles pages just seem less noisy then the ones Microsoft Bing conjures up.
I'm talking look and feel for me more then the actual search results.
I noticed my eyes drifted off the search results to the side bar and the header at the top which seemed more distracting then helpful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322952</id>
	<title>Why my Google sites page is not found on Bing?</title>
	<author>ozzee</author>
	<datestamp>1267441380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this the reason why after numerous attempts to have my Google sites page crawled by Bing, I get no results whatsoever from Bing?  Is MS not crying fowl on Google when they themselves are to blame?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the reason why after numerous attempts to have my Google sites page crawled by Bing , I get no results whatsoever from Bing ?
Is MS not crying fowl on Google when they themselves are to blame ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the reason why after numerous attempts to have my Google sites page crawled by Bing, I get no results whatsoever from Bing?
Is MS not crying fowl on Google when they themselves are to blame?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700</id>
	<title>Makes sense really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267476480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>in meeting with government agencies to discuss its recently approved search deal with Yahoo, Microsoft officials explained how Google has tilted the mechanics of the search advertising business in its favor. &ldquo;As you might expect, the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google&mdash;since that is the focus of the partnership,&rdquo;</p></div><p>The title and summary seems to give the assumption that MS <i>went and complained</i> to DoJ and EC, but it really seems to be different case. They were discussing about the deal with Yahoo and why it doesn't hurt the market or Google. It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals. Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : in meeting with government agencies to discuss its recently approved search deal with Yahoo , Microsoft officials explained how Google has tilted the mechanics of the search advertising business in its favor .
   As you might expect , the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google    since that is the focus of the partnership ,    The title and summary seems to give the assumption that MS went and complained to DoJ and EC , but it really seems to be different case .
They were discussing about the deal with Yahoo and why it does n't hurt the market or Google .
It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals .
Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:in meeting with government agencies to discuss its recently approved search deal with Yahoo, Microsoft officials explained how Google has tilted the mechanics of the search advertising business in its favor.
“As you might expect, the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google—since that is the focus of the partnership,”The title and summary seems to give the assumption that MS went and complained to DoJ and EC, but it really seems to be different case.
They were discussing about the deal with Yahoo and why it doesn't hurt the market or Google.
It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals.
Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31327156</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense really</title>
	<author>iamacyborg</author>
	<datestamp>1267560000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anti-trust laws are evil and anti-consumer. I know it's not what you leaned in elementary school...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti-trust laws are evil and anti-consumer .
I know it 's not what you leaned in elementary school.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti-trust laws are evil and anti-consumer.
I know it's not what you leaned in elementary school...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321810</id>
	<title>Just in case you want to file a complaint</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1267437120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just in case you want to file a complaint against a <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/consumer\_form\_en.html" title="europa.eu">dominant company operating on European markets, just use this form.</a> [europa.eu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just in case you want to file a complaint against a dominant company operating on European markets , just use this form .
[ europa.eu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just in case you want to file a complaint against a dominant company operating on European markets, just use this form.
[europa.eu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31337238</id>
	<title>Here's what Microsoft is \_really\_ saying</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1267530540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up. [...] To me, it sounds like MS is saying, "No one uses our search engine because Google provides better search results and that is wrong."</p></div><p>The "network effects" bit makes me think MS is trying to convey something like this:</p><ul><li>Google provides better search results</li><li>Thus, more people use Google web search</li><li>This makes Google provide better search results</li><li>Few people use our search engine, so we have bad results, so we can't make people use our search engine.  No fair.</li></ul><p>Similarly to why people start using Microsoft Office ${next\_version}: because everybody else uses it already; a competitor has to break that cycle to even get a foothold.</p><p>I'm not convinced Microsoft is doing this out of a motivation having to do with the well-functioning of the market and consumer benefit---in fact, I think Microsoft worries much more about its own benefit---but at least they have a "it's bad for the market and hence the public" angle they can use to argue and justify policy that benefits them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up .
[ ... ] To me , it sounds like MS is saying , " No one uses our search engine because Google provides better search results and that is wrong .
" The " network effects " bit makes me think MS is trying to convey something like this : Google provides better search resultsThus , more people use Google web searchThis makes Google provide better search resultsFew people use our search engine , so we have bad results , so we ca n't make people use our search engine .
No fair.Similarly to why people start using Microsoft Office $ { next \ _version } : because everybody else uses it already ; a competitor has to break that cycle to even get a foothold.I 'm not convinced Microsoft is doing this out of a motivation having to do with the well-functioning of the market and consumer benefit---in fact , I think Microsoft worries much more about its own benefit---but at least they have a " it 's bad for the market and hence the public " angle they can use to argue and justify policy that benefits them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up.
[...] To me, it sounds like MS is saying, "No one uses our search engine because Google provides better search results and that is wrong.
"The "network effects" bit makes me think MS is trying to convey something like this:Google provides better search resultsThus, more people use Google web searchThis makes Google provide better search resultsFew people use our search engine, so we have bad results, so we can't make people use our search engine.
No fair.Similarly to why people start using Microsoft Office ${next\_version}: because everybody else uses it already; a competitor has to break that cycle to even get a foothold.I'm not convinced Microsoft is doing this out of a motivation having to do with the well-functioning of the market and consumer benefit---in fact, I think Microsoft worries much more about its own benefit---but at least they have a "it's bad for the market and hence the public" angle they can use to argue and justify policy that benefits them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321636</id>
	<title>Re:For once the system works</title>
	<author>Bill\_the\_Engineer</author>
	<datestamp>1267436580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capitalism stopped being an issue once the DOJ and EU became involved.
</p><p>Court mandated "Capitalism" is still not capitalism...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism stopped being an issue once the DOJ and EU became involved .
Court mandated " Capitalism " is still not capitalism.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism stopped being an issue once the DOJ and EU became involved.
Court mandated "Capitalism" is still not capitalism...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322994</id>
	<title>Stopped reading after...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"many more people".  Fingernails on a chalkboard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" many more people " .
Fingernails on a chalkboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"many more people".
Fingernails on a chalkboard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321688</id>
	<title>In other old news</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1267436700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Oracle lobbied the DOJ to investigate Microsoft through their membership in ProComp.</p><p>ProComp is an industry group whose director, Mitchell Pettit, offered this mission statement in 1998 when it was founded: "Our goal is to get Justice to file an antitrust lawsuit and win it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Netscape , Sun Microsystems , and Oracle lobbied the DOJ to investigate Microsoft through their membership in ProComp.ProComp is an industry group whose director , Mitchell Pettit , offered this mission statement in 1998 when it was founded : " Our goal is to get Justice to file an antitrust lawsuit and win it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Oracle lobbied the DOJ to investigate Microsoft through their membership in ProComp.ProComp is an industry group whose director, Mitchell Pettit, offered this mission statement in 1998 when it was founded: "Our goal is to get Justice to file an antitrust lawsuit and win it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31323956</id>
	<title>Google's Unfair Advantage is...Success?</title>
	<author>kwiqsilver</author>
	<datestamp>1267446000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So Microsoft is complaining that Google's success is making Google more successful. Within the next few years, I expect the government to equip all Google engineers (starting with their best, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison\_Bergeron" title="wikipedia.org">Harrison Bergeron</a> [wikipedia.org]) with devices that interrupt their brain activity at random intervals to keep them from coming up with such innovative technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Microsoft is complaining that Google 's success is making Google more successful .
Within the next few years , I expect the government to equip all Google engineers ( starting with their best , Harrison Bergeron [ wikipedia.org ] ) with devices that interrupt their brain activity at random intervals to keep them from coming up with such innovative technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Microsoft is complaining that Google's success is making Google more successful.
Within the next few years, I expect the government to equip all Google engineers (starting with their best, Harrison Bergeron [wikipedia.org]) with devices that interrupt their brain activity at random intervals to keep them from coming up with such innovative technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321514</id>
	<title>Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1267436220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't use Bing but for different reasons: a) in my experience it doesn't give me the results that are as relevant as Google's, and b) because it has that stupid picture on the front page. As for your reasons:<br> <br>

<i>1) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice (EG, Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal, many others.)</i> <br> <br>If you are going to boycott companies that advertise aggressively then your list must be pretty long. Do you boycott Verizon, Blackberry etc because they "shamelessly" accept money from Microsoft to make Bing their default search engine? Why don't you boycott those sites you mention (real estate etc)? Surely if the fact that Microsoft is paying sites to use Bing is evil, then accepting money to use an inferior search engine/maps etc on your own site is an even bigger evil?<br> <br>

<i>2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose. If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.</i> <br> <br>I think you are missing the point of competition. If companies only ever tried to do something new and never tried to "fill the role" already filled by some other company, we would be all be very much worse off. In my opinion Bing serves a useful purpose to me personally even though I don't use it: it puts pressure on Google to keep improving their service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use Bing but for different reasons : a ) in my experience it does n't give me the results that are as relevant as Google 's , and b ) because it has that stupid picture on the front page .
As for your reasons : 1 ) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice ( EG , Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal , many others .
) If you are going to boycott companies that advertise aggressively then your list must be pretty long .
Do you boycott Verizon , Blackberry etc because they " shamelessly " accept money from Microsoft to make Bing their default search engine ?
Why do n't you boycott those sites you mention ( real estate etc ) ?
Surely if the fact that Microsoft is paying sites to use Bing is evil , then accepting money to use an inferior search engine/maps etc on your own site is an even bigger evil ?
2 ) Created expressly to " Stop Google " , rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose .
If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at , then I would consider it useful .
I think you are missing the point of competition .
If companies only ever tried to do something new and never tried to " fill the role " already filled by some other company , we would be all be very much worse off .
In my opinion Bing serves a useful purpose to me personally even though I do n't use it : it puts pressure on Google to keep improving their service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use Bing but for different reasons: a) in my experience it doesn't give me the results that are as relevant as Google's, and b) because it has that stupid picture on the front page.
As for your reasons: 

1) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice (EG, Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal, many others.
)  If you are going to boycott companies that advertise aggressively then your list must be pretty long.
Do you boycott Verizon, Blackberry etc because they "shamelessly" accept money from Microsoft to make Bing their default search engine?
Why don't you boycott those sites you mention (real estate etc)?
Surely if the fact that Microsoft is paying sites to use Bing is evil, then accepting money to use an inferior search engine/maps etc on your own site is an even bigger evil?
2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose.
If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.
I think you are missing the point of competition.
If companies only ever tried to do something new and never tried to "fill the role" already filled by some other company, we would be all be very much worse off.
In my opinion Bing serves a useful purpose to me personally even though I don't use it: it puts pressure on Google to keep improving their service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322678</id>
	<title>They should know</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1267440420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not to go and complain about competitors, heres why.
<br>
First of all it's google.<br>
Second, it's good to have a diverse set of search engines and a diverse set of algorithms. The more there are out there, they higher chance any site has of ranking up or down.<br>
Third, if they want to make search their own way, why not post about it like a normal company? No, they have to go all drama queen and start crying about google, the most popular and innovative search technology we've seen yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>not to go and complain about competitors , heres why .
First of all it 's google .
Second , it 's good to have a diverse set of search engines and a diverse set of algorithms .
The more there are out there , they higher chance any site has of ranking up or down .
Third , if they want to make search their own way , why not post about it like a normal company ?
No , they have to go all drama queen and start crying about google , the most popular and innovative search technology we 've seen yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not to go and complain about competitors, heres why.
First of all it's google.
Second, it's good to have a diverse set of search engines and a diverse set of algorithms.
The more there are out there, they higher chance any site has of ranking up or down.
Third, if they want to make search their own way, why not post about it like a normal company?
No, they have to go all drama queen and start crying about google, the most popular and innovative search technology we've seen yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324902</id>
	<title>The difference between Google and Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267451520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that I am inclined to believe that Google sees value in respecting my wishes and Microsoft acts as if I owe them something for nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that I am inclined to believe that Google sees value in respecting my wishes and Microsoft acts as if I owe them something for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that I am inclined to believe that Google sees value in respecting my wishes and Microsoft acts as if I owe them something for nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321038</id>
	<title>Does it? Does it really?</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1267434540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to <b>taylor</b> their search results.</p></div><p>I hope they can do that Swiftly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results.I hope they can do that Swiftly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results.I hope they can do that Swiftly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321856</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, how about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267437240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why dont all drug companies release all of their potential drug candidate components to the world.  That kind of information is extremely valuable, not just to search companies, but to all kinds of companies in the healthcare space.</p><p>The answer is, of course, that it is valuable and expensive to obtain.  Why should any company be forced to publicly post their hard-earned competitive advantage for anyone to piggyback on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why dont all drug companies release all of their potential drug candidate components to the world .
That kind of information is extremely valuable , not just to search companies , but to all kinds of companies in the healthcare space.The answer is , of course , that it is valuable and expensive to obtain .
Why should any company be forced to publicly post their hard-earned competitive advantage for anyone to piggyback on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why dont all drug companies release all of their potential drug candidate components to the world.
That kind of information is extremely valuable, not just to search companies, but to all kinds of companies in the healthcare space.The answer is, of course, that it is valuable and expensive to obtain.
Why should any company be forced to publicly post their hard-earned competitive advantage for anyone to piggyback on?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325320</id>
	<title>Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267454760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) This is true, but google doesnt incentivize it's viewers, like MS Bing! does. (Checkout the "CashBack" feature.</p><p>2) What makes you think I use Linux? I have only ONE linux box, and it is mostly just as a novelty toy.</p><p>3) Easy; Look at Silverlight VS the new HTML video container class standard.  Look at the potential for "IE only Bing proprietary enhancements", vs "We really dont care what browser you use" google. Tell me again how you don't see a case for them to perform embrace and extend here.</p><p>4) Could be because Google is, well, GOOD at what it does maybe, and less to do with "Here's money, promote our search engine!" perhaps?</p><p>5) Actually, the High Res image *WAS* available for free from Google Maps. Thus, your argument is a non-sequitor.</p><p>6) Don't I WISH I got a paycheck from Google! HAH! Trust me, if something actually BETTER than google came out, I would switch. BING however, is not, and was not created to be "Better than google", it was created to "Stop" google. BIG difference.</p><p>7) I don't give google a free pass; I evaluate them as being preferrential over MS Bing, based on present featuresets and user costs. Big difference.  Should a better offering be presented, I would switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) This is true , but google doesnt incentivize it 's viewers , like MS Bing !
does. ( Checkout the " CashBack " feature.2 ) What makes you think I use Linux ?
I have only ONE linux box , and it is mostly just as a novelty toy.3 ) Easy ; Look at Silverlight VS the new HTML video container class standard .
Look at the potential for " IE only Bing proprietary enhancements " , vs " We really dont care what browser you use " google .
Tell me again how you do n't see a case for them to perform embrace and extend here.4 ) Could be because Google is , well , GOOD at what it does maybe , and less to do with " Here 's money , promote our search engine !
" perhaps ? 5 ) Actually , the High Res image * WAS * available for free from Google Maps .
Thus , your argument is a non-sequitor.6 ) Do n't I WISH I got a paycheck from Google !
HAH ! Trust me , if something actually BETTER than google came out , I would switch .
BING however , is not , and was not created to be " Better than google " , it was created to " Stop " google .
BIG difference.7 ) I do n't give google a free pass ; I evaluate them as being preferrential over MS Bing , based on present featuresets and user costs .
Big difference .
Should a better offering be presented , I would switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) This is true, but google doesnt incentivize it's viewers, like MS Bing!
does. (Checkout the "CashBack" feature.2) What makes you think I use Linux?
I have only ONE linux box, and it is mostly just as a novelty toy.3) Easy; Look at Silverlight VS the new HTML video container class standard.
Look at the potential for "IE only Bing proprietary enhancements", vs "We really dont care what browser you use" google.
Tell me again how you don't see a case for them to perform embrace and extend here.4) Could be because Google is, well, GOOD at what it does maybe, and less to do with "Here's money, promote our search engine!
" perhaps?5) Actually, the High Res image *WAS* available for free from Google Maps.
Thus, your argument is a non-sequitor.6) Don't I WISH I got a paycheck from Google!
HAH! Trust me, if something actually BETTER than google came out, I would switch.
BING however, is not, and was not created to be "Better than google", it was created to "Stop" google.
BIG difference.7) I don't give google a free pass; I evaluate them as being preferrential over MS Bing, based on present featuresets and user costs.
Big difference.
Should a better offering be presented, I would switch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321014</id>
	<title>Wait, is there a law against</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1267434420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using your market share to make your product <em>better</em>?</p><p>It's not the same as what Microsoft has been doing, ie. using their market share on some products to force their other products onto their customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using your market share to make your product better ? It 's not the same as what Microsoft has been doing , ie .
using their market share on some products to force their other products onto their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using your market share to make your product better?It's not the same as what Microsoft has been doing, ie.
using their market share on some products to force their other products onto their customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320990</id>
	<title>You can trust Microsoft</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267434240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just too predictable. The last time Microsoft surprised me was when they did something even worse than they use to do. Even comics villains are more dimensional than them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just too predictable .
The last time Microsoft surprised me was when they did something even worse than they use to do .
Even comics villains are more dimensional than them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just too predictable.
The last time Microsoft surprised me was when they did something even worse than they use to do.
Even comics villains are more dimensional than them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322130</id>
	<title>Yes, yes ... using product improves it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because as we all know, the immense popularity of Microsoft's software means Microsoft gets huge amounts of critically useful feedback that helps them to make their products so much better over time, and that's unfair.  For example, it took user feedback from several versions of Office before they introduced Clippy as a solution, and several more versions of additional user feedback before they removed it.  Same for such things as WGA in Windows, which was introduced in later versions to address user complaints about receiving counterfeit versions of Windows.  That kind of incremental improvement due to feedback from users was completely unfair to the competitors because they were unable to implement similar features.</p><p>Haw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because as we all know , the immense popularity of Microsoft 's software means Microsoft gets huge amounts of critically useful feedback that helps them to make their products so much better over time , and that 's unfair .
For example , it took user feedback from several versions of Office before they introduced Clippy as a solution , and several more versions of additional user feedback before they removed it .
Same for such things as WGA in Windows , which was introduced in later versions to address user complaints about receiving counterfeit versions of Windows .
That kind of incremental improvement due to feedback from users was completely unfair to the competitors because they were unable to implement similar features.Haw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because as we all know, the immense popularity of Microsoft's software means Microsoft gets huge amounts of critically useful feedback that helps them to make their products so much better over time, and that's unfair.
For example, it took user feedback from several versions of Office before they introduced Clippy as a solution, and several more versions of additional user feedback before they removed it.
Same for such things as WGA in Windows, which was introduced in later versions to address user complaints about receiving counterfeit versions of Windows.
That kind of incremental improvement due to feedback from users was completely unfair to the competitors because they were unable to implement similar features.Haw.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321944</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, how about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267437600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about force all search engines release search statistical data to the public.   That kind of information is extremely valuable, not just to search companies, but to marketing companies too.</p></div><p>Why should any company be forced to release any data legitimately gathered in the ordinary conduct of their business to anybody else? If marketing companies are interested in Google's data, let them approach Google with an offer to buy it! This valuable commodity is Google's rightful property and they are entitled to use it or sell it or give it away as they see fit. This is how a free market economy works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about force all search engines release search statistical data to the public .
That kind of information is extremely valuable , not just to search companies , but to marketing companies too.Why should any company be forced to release any data legitimately gathered in the ordinary conduct of their business to anybody else ?
If marketing companies are interested in Google 's data , let them approach Google with an offer to buy it !
This valuable commodity is Google 's rightful property and they are entitled to use it or sell it or give it away as they see fit .
This is how a free market economy works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about force all search engines release search statistical data to the public.
That kind of information is extremely valuable, not just to search companies, but to marketing companies too.Why should any company be forced to release any data legitimately gathered in the ordinary conduct of their business to anybody else?
If marketing companies are interested in Google's data, let them approach Google with an offer to buy it!
This valuable commodity is Google's rightful property and they are entitled to use it or sell it or give it away as they see fit.
This is how a free market economy works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321920</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense really</title>
	<author>bloodhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1267437540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What does Google's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo! merger?

 In any merger/deal of the size between 2 large companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo the companies are asked to show why their deal isn't anti competitive and doesn't adversely affect the competitive landscape, as such showing that google has a dominant market position that will be unaffected by the deal (except to provide more market competition) they are directly answering the question as to whether or not the deal should go forward.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does Google 's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo !
merger ? In any merger/deal of the size between 2 large companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo the companies are asked to show why their deal is n't anti competitive and does n't adversely affect the competitive landscape , as such showing that google has a dominant market position that will be unaffected by the deal ( except to provide more market competition ) they are directly answering the question as to whether or not the deal should go forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does Google's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo!
merger?

 In any merger/deal of the size between 2 large companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo the companies are asked to show why their deal isn't anti competitive and doesn't adversely affect the competitive landscape, as such showing that google has a dominant market position that will be unaffected by the deal (except to provide more market competition) they are directly answering the question as to whether or not the deal should go forward.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321906</id>
	<title>Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1267437480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4)  They claim to want to "make my decisions for me".</p><p>I find that insulting, and would refuse to use it for that reason alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 ) They claim to want to " make my decisions for me " .I find that insulting , and would refuse to use it for that reason alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4)  They claim to want to "make my decisions for me".I find that insulting, and would refuse to use it for that reason alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322424</id>
	<title>Maybe we need to revisit Microsoft's tactics.</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1267439460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They include firewall, zip archiving, anti-virus, browser, email and messenger software which all have a knock-on effect for companies in those areas and some of which can't be removed and they have the nerve to cry because they can't monopolise search?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They include firewall , zip archiving , anti-virus , browser , email and messenger software which all have a knock-on effect for companies in those areas and some of which ca n't be removed and they have the nerve to cry because they ca n't monopolise search ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They include firewall, zip archiving, anti-virus, browser, email and messenger software which all have a knock-on effect for companies in those areas and some of which can't be removed and they have the nerve to cry because they can't monopolise search?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321882</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267437360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a terrible analogy because the reason GaGa is played on all over the radio is precisely because of the corrupt oligopoly in the market of radio stations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a terrible analogy because the reason GaGa is played on all over the radio is precisely because of the corrupt oligopoly in the market of radio stations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a terrible analogy because the reason GaGa is played on all over the radio is precisely because of the corrupt oligopoly in the market of radio stations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321700</id>
	<title>Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267436760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google pays Apple $250 million to be default on iphones...</p><p>Think moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google pays Apple $ 250 million to be default on iphones...Think moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google pays Apple $250 million to be default on iphones...Think moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321662</id>
	<title>Re:Pot == kettle == black?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267436640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GROAN... that was today's worst pun. Congratulations!</p><p>Now go sit in the corner, young man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GROAN... that was today 's worst pun .
Congratulations ! Now go sit in the corner , young man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GROAN... that was today's worst pun.
Congratulations!Now go sit in the corner, young man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325652</id>
	<title>Re:Google make me nervous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267457880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is laughable. How is Google the "overwhelmingly dominant" search engine? Because a lot of people use it? You do realize that using another search engine is as easy as knowing its URL? Hell, you can even Google for competing search engines. "Overwhelmingly dominant"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is laughable .
How is Google the " overwhelmingly dominant " search engine ?
Because a lot of people use it ?
You do realize that using another search engine is as easy as knowing its URL ?
Hell , you can even Google for competing search engines .
" Overwhelmingly dominant " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is laughable.
How is Google the "overwhelmingly dominant" search engine?
Because a lot of people use it?
You do realize that using another search engine is as easy as knowing its URL?
Hell, you can even Google for competing search engines.
"Overwhelmingly dominant"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322236</id>
	<title>That's a paradox!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really! I know there's only one of the world's smallest violin, but right now I'm hearing a polyphony of them performing the saddest requiem of all times!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really !
I know there 's only one of the world 's smallest violin , but right now I 'm hearing a polyphony of them performing the saddest requiem of all times !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really!
I know there's only one of the world's smallest violin, but right now I'm hearing a polyphony of them performing the saddest requiem of all times!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321158</id>
	<title>Re:For once the system works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267434960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is hard to compete with because they have a search monopoly.  Microsoft were punished for their monopolistic behaviour.  Why shouldn't Google be?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is hard to compete with because they have a search monopoly .
Microsoft were punished for their monopolistic behaviour .
Why should n't Google be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is hard to compete with because they have a search monopoly.
Microsoft were punished for their monopolistic behaviour.
Why shouldn't Google be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321122</id>
	<title>Re:For once the system works</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1267434780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft's strategy is not "Let the free market work, and the strong will win", it is "Win at all costs".  So actually, this is consistent with their past behavior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's strategy is not " Let the free market work , and the strong will win " , it is " Win at all costs " .
So actually , this is consistent with their past behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's strategy is not "Let the free market work, and the strong will win", it is "Win at all costs".
So actually, this is consistent with their past behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31323216</id>
	<title>Re:Which side is their delusion buttered on?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267442400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember who instigated Microsoft's antitrust woes and how they did it?  If you don't, look it up.</p><p>Microsoft obviously remembered that lesson on how to play dirty and isn't above using it on other people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember who instigated Microsoft 's antitrust woes and how they did it ?
If you do n't , look it up.Microsoft obviously remembered that lesson on how to play dirty and is n't above using it on other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember who instigated Microsoft's antitrust woes and how they did it?
If you don't, look it up.Microsoft obviously remembered that lesson on how to play dirty and isn't above using it on other people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321302</id>
	<title>Re:I'm confused...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1267435380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...I thought Bing (But It's Not Google) was a "Decision Engine".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div><p>It hasn't told me where I want to go today or any day yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I thought Bing ( But It 's Not Google ) was a " Decision Engine " .
: - ) It has n't told me where I want to go today or any day yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...I thought Bing (But It's Not Google) was a "Decision Engine".
:-)It hasn't told me where I want to go today or any day yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324542</id>
	<title>Never</title>
	<author>rockwood</author>
	<datestamp>1267449120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Evil never dies</htmltext>
<tokenext>Evil never dies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evil never dies</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321588</id>
	<title>Microsoft is pissed because google is a verb</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1267436460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously though, Microsoft is just miffed because it can't start 10 years late and be competitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously though , Microsoft is just miffed because it ca n't start 10 years late and be competitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously though, Microsoft is just miffed because it can't start 10 years late and be competitive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31336668</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense really</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1267528500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market?</p></div><p>The large amount of capital required to enter the automobile market is a barrier to entry and hence a barrier to competition---something the free market works best without.</p><p>I'm not advocating a particular policy, though.  But I think it's worth considering how large capital requirements skews the market towards having few competitors with all the good (hah!) side effects that has.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it 's anti-trust that I can not enter the automobile market ? The large amount of capital required to enter the automobile market is a barrier to entry and hence a barrier to competition---something the free market works best without.I 'm not advocating a particular policy , though .
But I think it 's worth considering how large capital requirements skews the market towards having few competitors with all the good ( hah !
) side effects that has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market?The large amount of capital required to enter the automobile market is a barrier to entry and hence a barrier to competition---something the free market works best without.I'm not advocating a particular policy, though.
But I think it's worth considering how large capital requirements skews the market towards having few competitors with all the good (hah!
) side effects that has.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321656</id>
	<title>Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1267436640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  Some people say Google is hypocritical with 'Don't be Evil,' and it's true some things they do could be construed as evil.  And yet they are nothing compared to the true evil they will see if Microsoft becomes dominant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Some people say Google is hypocritical with 'Do n't be Evil, ' and it 's true some things they do could be construed as evil .
And yet they are nothing compared to the true evil they will see if Microsoft becomes dominant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Some people say Google is hypocritical with 'Don't be Evil,' and it's true some things they do could be construed as evil.
And yet they are nothing compared to the true evil they will see if Microsoft becomes dominant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321554</id>
	<title>People miss the huge difference.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267436340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its one thing to blatantly abuse a monopoly like Microsoft has been documented doing time and time again. Having a monopoly because you have a good popular product have never been illegal.</p><p>That said im not so sure Google even fit into the monopoly description. A monopoly have barriers making it hard to switch to a competitor.</p><p>Only reason i have not using Bing is that i wouldnt trust Microsoft with filtering my information. When dead people write letters i stay the hell away.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its one thing to blatantly abuse a monopoly like Microsoft has been documented doing time and time again .
Having a monopoly because you have a good popular product have never been illegal.That said im not so sure Google even fit into the monopoly description .
A monopoly have barriers making it hard to switch to a competitor.Only reason i have not using Bing is that i wouldnt trust Microsoft with filtering my information .
When dead people write letters i stay the hell away .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its one thing to blatantly abuse a monopoly like Microsoft has been documented doing time and time again.
Having a monopoly because you have a good popular product have never been illegal.That said im not so sure Google even fit into the monopoly description.
A monopoly have barriers making it hard to switch to a competitor.Only reason i have not using Bing is that i wouldnt trust Microsoft with filtering my information.
When dead people write letters i stay the hell away.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321000</id>
	<title>Re:What algo?</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1267434300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Google&rsquo;s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.</p></div><p>I don't think that is how pagerank or keyword search works.</p></div><p>Search engines nor Google has relied solely on pagerank or keywords for many many years. They have hundreds of different algorithms that count, one of them seeing what links people click on the results most (this is really good data on the less common search terms as Google learns <i>a lot</i> on those)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google    s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.I do n't think that is how pagerank or keyword search works.Search engines nor Google has relied solely on pagerank or keywords for many many years .
They have hundreds of different algorithms that count , one of them seeing what links people click on the results most ( this is really good data on the less common search terms as Google learns a lot on those )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.I don't think that is how pagerank or keyword search works.Search engines nor Google has relied solely on pagerank or keywords for many many years.
They have hundreds of different algorithms that count, one of them seeing what links people click on the results most (this is really good data on the less common search terms as Google learns a lot on those)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324322</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267447800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A lawyer confirmed that the FSF told the US Department of Justice and the<br>European Commission how Microsoft&rsquo;s business practices may be harming trade,<br>production and competition in the  OS markets [...]<br>'Microsoft&rsquo;s secret trade agreements hinder less known OS's even to be seen on the market.<br>These and other markets effects make it hard for competing OS maker to catch up.<br>Open Source's well-received OS systems are addressing this challenge by offering innovations<br>in areas were Microsoft never had chance before - Security &amp; Server market.<br>But Open Source needs to gain volume too, in order to increase relevance in markets to<br>increase users choice and security for desktops systems."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A lawyer confirmed that the FSF told the US Department of Justice and theEuropean Commission how Microsoft    s business practices may be harming trade,production and competition in the OS markets [ ... ] 'Microsoft    s secret trade agreements hinder less known OS 's even to be seen on the market.These and other markets effects make it hard for competing OS maker to catch up.Open Source 's well-received OS systems are addressing this challenge by offering innovationsin areas were Microsoft never had chance before - Security &amp; Server market.But Open Source needs to gain volume too , in order to increase relevance in markets toincrease users choice and security for desktops systems .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A lawyer confirmed that the FSF told the US Department of Justice and theEuropean Commission how Microsoft’s business practices may be harming trade,production and competition in the  OS markets [...]'Microsoft’s secret trade agreements hinder less known OS's even to be seen on the market.These and other markets effects make it hard for competing OS maker to catch up.Open Source's well-received OS systems are addressing this challenge by offering innovationsin areas were Microsoft never had chance before - Security &amp; Server market.But Open Source needs to gain volume too, in order to increase relevance in markets toincrease users choice and security for desktops systems.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321632</id>
	<title>Re:What algo?</title>
	<author>graft</author>
	<datestamp>1267436580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>PageRank was initially Google's primary strength, but since then they've relied on other methods for ranking results. Most significantly, you can rank results based on how users respond to things (i.e., by seeing how much time users spend on a link before coming back to a page of search results, you can judge how good a particular result was, and upweight/downweight accordingly). This is a methodology that definitely improves with number of users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PageRank was initially Google 's primary strength , but since then they 've relied on other methods for ranking results .
Most significantly , you can rank results based on how users respond to things ( i.e. , by seeing how much time users spend on a link before coming back to a page of search results , you can judge how good a particular result was , and upweight/downweight accordingly ) .
This is a methodology that definitely improves with number of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PageRank was initially Google's primary strength, but since then they've relied on other methods for ranking results.
Most significantly, you can rank results based on how users respond to things (i.e., by seeing how much time users spend on a link before coming back to a page of search results, you can judge how good a particular result was, and upweight/downweight accordingly).
This is a methodology that definitely improves with number of users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31323900</id>
	<title>Oh the irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267445700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that Microsoft is even allowed to create 'Bing' should violate the very core of any anti-trust law!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that Microsoft is even allowed to create 'Bing ' should violate the very core of any anti-trust law !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that Microsoft is even allowed to create 'Bing' should violate the very core of any anti-trust law!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325020</id>
	<title>What's the old saying about turnabout ...</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1267452300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... bein fair play?

</p><p>Come to the search game late then don't complain about being behind.  "Gee... we've had a new search engine for, what, three months now?  And we're not leading the market?  Whaa!" It's not Google's fault that your previous attempts to field a search engine sucked like a tornado.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... bein fair play ?
Come to the search game late then do n't complain about being behind .
" Gee... we 've had a new search engine for , what , three months now ?
And we 're not leading the market ?
Whaa ! " It 's not Google 's fault that your previous attempts to field a search engine sucked like a tornado .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... bein fair play?
Come to the search game late then don't complain about being behind.
"Gee... we've had a new search engine for, what, three months now?
And we're not leading the market?
Whaa!" It's not Google's fault that your previous attempts to field a search engine sucked like a tornado.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31330208</id>
	<title>Pot Meet Kettle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267547040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft of all companies crying anti-competitive.  Awesome</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft of all companies crying anti-competitive .
Awesome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft of all companies crying anti-competitive.
Awesome</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322894</id>
	<title>a tautology!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when i read this, all i hear is the tautology king saying:<br>google is better because they're better.<br>therefore, we need laws against them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when i read this , all i hear is the tautology king saying : google is better because they 're better.therefore , we need laws against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when i read this, all i hear is the tautology king saying:google is better because they're better.therefore, we need laws against them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320962</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>jonnale</author>
	<datestamp>1267434120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Google&rsquo;s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google. These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up."

So let me get this straight...

When you make a product (in this case a search engine), you should not aim to make it the best product possible because it will be harder for other companies to catch up and steal your revenue/profit?

Seriously?

To me, it sounds like MS is saying, "No one uses our search engine because Google provides better search results and that is wrong."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Google    s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google .
These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up .
" So let me get this straight.. . When you make a product ( in this case a search engine ) , you should not aim to make it the best product possible because it will be harder for other companies to catch up and steal your revenue/profit ?
Seriously ? To me , it sounds like MS is saying , " No one uses our search engine because Google provides better search results and that is wrong .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.
These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up.
"

So let me get this straight...

When you make a product (in this case a search engine), you should not aim to make it the best product possible because it will be harder for other companies to catch up and steal your revenue/profit?
Seriously?

To me, it sounds like MS is saying, "No one uses our search engine because Google provides better search results and that is wrong.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322454</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1267439580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to disagree here, but it's a problem in any area if one business is MUCH more successful than all it's competitors.  What the correct solution is isn't clear, and may differ from case to case, but whenever that happens a problem exists that threatens to become much worse.</p><p>To reiterate one of my continual themes, monopolies are always bad.  Always.  Inevitably.  Sometimes the alternatives are worse (e.g., unbearably expensive), but that doesn't make the monopoly good.</p><p>Note that it's not power that causes corruption, it's the lack of accountability for what you do.  This causes even minor bureaucrats at a monopoly to become grit in the gears of society.  And this causes large businesses to feel that they can get away with help desk lines that keep you on hold for hours, and then drop you because "business hours are over".  If there weren't a monopoly (or duopoly, or cartel oligopoly), then this kind of behavior would be answered by customers fleeing to competition.  But if there isn't any competition...whether by eliminating the competition or by agreement...then the customers are left without viable options.</p><p>(And, yes, it's actually more complex than that.  It also depends on the customer being able to find out who's shafting them, e.g., but that's a reasonable synopsis.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to disagree here , but it 's a problem in any area if one business is MUCH more successful than all it 's competitors .
What the correct solution is is n't clear , and may differ from case to case , but whenever that happens a problem exists that threatens to become much worse.To reiterate one of my continual themes , monopolies are always bad .
Always. Inevitably .
Sometimes the alternatives are worse ( e.g. , unbearably expensive ) , but that does n't make the monopoly good.Note that it 's not power that causes corruption , it 's the lack of accountability for what you do .
This causes even minor bureaucrats at a monopoly to become grit in the gears of society .
And this causes large businesses to feel that they can get away with help desk lines that keep you on hold for hours , and then drop you because " business hours are over " .
If there were n't a monopoly ( or duopoly , or cartel oligopoly ) , then this kind of behavior would be answered by customers fleeing to competition .
But if there is n't any competition...whether by eliminating the competition or by agreement...then the customers are left without viable options .
( And , yes , it 's actually more complex than that .
It also depends on the customer being able to find out who 's shafting them , e.g. , but that 's a reasonable synopsis .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to disagree here, but it's a problem in any area if one business is MUCH more successful than all it's competitors.
What the correct solution is isn't clear, and may differ from case to case, but whenever that happens a problem exists that threatens to become much worse.To reiterate one of my continual themes, monopolies are always bad.
Always.  Inevitably.
Sometimes the alternatives are worse (e.g., unbearably expensive), but that doesn't make the monopoly good.Note that it's not power that causes corruption, it's the lack of accountability for what you do.
This causes even minor bureaucrats at a monopoly to become grit in the gears of society.
And this causes large businesses to feel that they can get away with help desk lines that keep you on hold for hours, and then drop you because "business hours are over".
If there weren't a monopoly (or duopoly, or cartel oligopoly), then this kind of behavior would be answered by customers fleeing to competition.
But if there isn't any competition...whether by eliminating the competition or by agreement...then the customers are left without viable options.
(And, yes, it's actually more complex than that.
It also depends on the customer being able to find out who's shafting them, e.g., but that's a reasonable synopsis.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320902</id>
	<title>For once the system works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267477140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, so Google is hard to compete with because they're better. Don't they know that's how capitalism is supposed to work, or is Microsoft too used to its own tactics to realize this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so Google is hard to compete with because they 're better .
Do n't they know that 's how capitalism is supposed to work , or is Microsoft too used to its own tactics to realize this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so Google is hard to compete with because they're better.
Don't they know that's how capitalism is supposed to work, or is Microsoft too used to its own tactics to realize this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320916</id>
	<title>Own Medicine?</title>
	<author>0ld\_d0g</author>
	<datestamp>1267434000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other OSs have a similar problem as Windows is such a huge market that many commercial app developers will restrict their products to only windows releases. And users choose (well.. in some cases atleast) the OS with the most apps, and on and on it goes.</p><p>Seems to be the same problem in search. Google has millions of data points of search terms co-related with the link that was clicked and all that data has trained their algorithm such that any competing algorithm would find it very hard to catch up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other OSs have a similar problem as Windows is such a huge market that many commercial app developers will restrict their products to only windows releases .
And users choose ( well.. in some cases atleast ) the OS with the most apps , and on and on it goes.Seems to be the same problem in search .
Google has millions of data points of search terms co-related with the link that was clicked and all that data has trained their algorithm such that any competing algorithm would find it very hard to catch up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other OSs have a similar problem as Windows is such a huge market that many commercial app developers will restrict their products to only windows releases.
And users choose (well.. in some cases atleast) the OS with the most apps, and on and on it goes.Seems to be the same problem in search.
Google has millions of data points of search terms co-related with the link that was clicked and all that data has trained their algorithm such that any competing algorithm would find it very hard to catch up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325696</id>
	<title>Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267458120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to pick you up on one point there.  Linux wasn't created to "stop Microsoft".  Sure, people may use it because they dont like Microsoft, but thats nothing to do with the creator of linux, and therefore irrelevant to your argument.  Linus created it as a personal project and for reasons that didn't even involve Microsoft.</p><p>Also, I dont believe Google is getting a free pass at anything.  Sure, investigate if they're doing anything illegal - no reason not to.  But from the summary/article etc, it seems like MS is purely complaining that google are using their success to be more successful.  Nothing illegal about that on its own.  Actually its funny because MS has been in trouble for using their marketshare illegally.  It really does boil down to MS complaining because google wont share their toys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to pick you up on one point there .
Linux was n't created to " stop Microsoft " .
Sure , people may use it because they dont like Microsoft , but thats nothing to do with the creator of linux , and therefore irrelevant to your argument .
Linus created it as a personal project and for reasons that did n't even involve Microsoft.Also , I dont believe Google is getting a free pass at anything .
Sure , investigate if they 're doing anything illegal - no reason not to .
But from the summary/article etc , it seems like MS is purely complaining that google are using their success to be more successful .
Nothing illegal about that on its own .
Actually its funny because MS has been in trouble for using their marketshare illegally .
It really does boil down to MS complaining because google wont share their toys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to pick you up on one point there.
Linux wasn't created to "stop Microsoft".
Sure, people may use it because they dont like Microsoft, but thats nothing to do with the creator of linux, and therefore irrelevant to your argument.
Linus created it as a personal project and for reasons that didn't even involve Microsoft.Also, I dont believe Google is getting a free pass at anything.
Sure, investigate if they're doing anything illegal - no reason not to.
But from the summary/article etc, it seems like MS is purely complaining that google are using their success to be more successful.
Nothing illegal about that on its own.
Actually its funny because MS has been in trouble for using their marketshare illegally.
It really does boil down to MS complaining because google wont share their toys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321144</id>
	<title>Why the surprise?</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1267434900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, you think companies get investigated for anti-trust violations spontaneously? The original Microsoft anti-trust trial was spurred by coalition of IBM, Sun, and a couple of other politically well-connected companies whose names escape me, quietly complaining to the US DoJ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you think companies get investigated for anti-trust violations spontaneously ?
The original Microsoft anti-trust trial was spurred by coalition of IBM , Sun , and a couple of other politically well-connected companies whose names escape me , quietly complaining to the US DoJ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you think companies get investigated for anti-trust violations spontaneously?
The original Microsoft anti-trust trial was spurred by coalition of IBM, Sun, and a couple of other politically well-connected companies whose names escape me, quietly complaining to the US DoJ.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320952</id>
	<title>Old news on Slashdot?</title>
	<author>wjsteele</author>
	<datestamp>1267434120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow... Slashdot's sloagan used to be "Yesterday's news, Today!"  But now it seems that Slashdot is gunning for "Last week's news, Today!"<br> <br>

See <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684\_3-10458735-265.html" title="cnet.com">here</a> [cnet.com] and <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684\_3-10460829-265.html?tag=newsFeaturedBlogArea.0" title="cnet.com">here</a> [cnet.com]. <br> <br>

Bill</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... Slashdot 's sloagan used to be " Yesterday 's news , Today !
" But now it seems that Slashdot is gunning for " Last week 's news , Today !
" See here [ cnet.com ] and here [ cnet.com ] .
Bill</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow... Slashdot's sloagan used to be "Yesterday's news, Today!
"  But now it seems that Slashdot is gunning for "Last week's news, Today!
" 

See here [cnet.com] and here [cnet.com].
Bill</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense really</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1267434600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They were discussing about the deal with Yahoo and why it doesn't hurt the market or Google. It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals. Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results.</p></div><p>Huh, that's odd.  From the <a href="http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2010/02/26/competition-authorities-and-search.aspx" title="microsoftontheissues.com">original blog post</a> [microsoftontheissues.com]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Over the past few months Microsoft, too, has met with the DOJ and the European Commission. The subject of our meetings has been the competition law review, now completed, of the search partnership between Yahoo! and Microsoft. As you might expect, the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google--since that is the focus of the partnership. <b>We told them what we know about how Google is doing business.</b></p> </div><p>What does Google's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo! merger?  In addition to that:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In this instance, there has been no shortage of affected voices. A quick Internet search will surface the growing concerns that have been raised by upstart innovators such as Ciao (owned by Microsoft)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>Sounds to me like Microsoft has been complaining to the DoJ and EC.  <br> <br>

Furthermore the post doesn't really focus on one thing and also brings up the Google Books deal for some odd reason.  I mean, if they're complaining about it, that's fine.  Just say what you think is wrong and be done with it.  From that point on the DoJ or EC will take action if they need to.  But I bet that won't be what will happen.  I bet they'll bring this up over and over again and fun startups that died "because of Google" (like Ciao) to take legal action against the behemoth.  Seems to be Microsoft's modus operandi.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals.</p></div><p>It makes sense alright.  It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google's side as possible.  The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws?  Please!  Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market?  Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act?  Absurd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They were discussing about the deal with Yahoo and why it does n't hurt the market or Google .
It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals .
Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results.Huh , that 's odd .
From the original blog post [ microsoftontheissues.com ] : Over the past few months Microsoft , too , has met with the DOJ and the European Commission .
The subject of our meetings has been the competition law review , now completed , of the search partnership between Yahoo !
and Microsoft .
As you might expect , the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google--since that is the focus of the partnership .
We told them what we know about how Google is doing business .
What does Google 's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo !
merger ? In addition to that : In this instance , there has been no shortage of affected voices .
A quick Internet search will surface the growing concerns that have been raised by upstart innovators such as Ciao ( owned by Microsoft ) ... Sounds to me like Microsoft has been complaining to the DoJ and EC .
Furthermore the post does n't really focus on one thing and also brings up the Google Books deal for some odd reason .
I mean , if they 're complaining about it , that 's fine .
Just say what you think is wrong and be done with it .
From that point on the DoJ or EC will take action if they need to .
But I bet that wo n't be what will happen .
I bet they 'll bring this up over and over again and fun startups that died " because of Google " ( like Ciao ) to take legal action against the behemoth .
Seems to be Microsoft 's modus operandi.It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals.It makes sense alright .
It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they 've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google 's side as possible .
The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws ?
Please ! Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it 's anti-trust that I can not enter the automobile market ?
Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act ?
Absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were discussing about the deal with Yahoo and why it doesn't hurt the market or Google.
It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals.
Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results.Huh, that's odd.
From the original blog post [microsoftontheissues.com]:Over the past few months Microsoft, too, has met with the DOJ and the European Commission.
The subject of our meetings has been the competition law review, now completed, of the search partnership between Yahoo!
and Microsoft.
As you might expect, the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google--since that is the focus of the partnership.
We told them what we know about how Google is doing business.
What does Google's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo!
merger?  In addition to that:In this instance, there has been no shortage of affected voices.
A quick Internet search will surface the growing concerns that have been raised by upstart innovators such as Ciao (owned by Microsoft) ... Sounds to me like Microsoft has been complaining to the DoJ and EC.
Furthermore the post doesn't really focus on one thing and also brings up the Google Books deal for some odd reason.
I mean, if they're complaining about it, that's fine.
Just say what you think is wrong and be done with it.
From that point on the DoJ or EC will take action if they need to.
But I bet that won't be what will happen.
I bet they'll bring this up over and over again and fun startups that died "because of Google" (like Ciao) to take legal action against the behemoth.
Seems to be Microsoft's modus operandi.It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals.It makes sense alright.
It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google's side as possible.
The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws?
Please!  Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market?
Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act?
Absurd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321816</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267437180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What does Google's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo! merger?</p> </div><p>Quite a lot, obviously, since the whole reason for the merger relates to Google and competition with it.  How can anybody expect to relate to one side of the story without knowing both.</p><p>It should go without saying.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It makes sense alright.  It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google's side as possible.  The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws?  Please!  Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market?  Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act?  Absurd.</p></div><p>Actually, there are existing laws relating to the access of infrastructure which were created because of concerns such as trust issues.   Heck, they even had to mandate number portability to get the phone company to give them up.   As for automobiles, just ask a man called Tucker about the problems he had.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does Google 's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo !
merger ? Quite a lot , obviously , since the whole reason for the merger relates to Google and competition with it .
How can anybody expect to relate to one side of the story without knowing both.It should go without saying.It makes sense alright .
It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they 've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google 's side as possible .
The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws ?
Please ! Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it 's anti-trust that I can not enter the automobile market ?
Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act ?
Absurd.Actually , there are existing laws relating to the access of infrastructure which were created because of concerns such as trust issues .
Heck , they even had to mandate number portability to get the phone company to give them up .
As for automobiles , just ask a man called Tucker about the problems he had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does Google's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo!
merger? Quite a lot, obviously, since the whole reason for the merger relates to Google and competition with it.
How can anybody expect to relate to one side of the story without knowing both.It should go without saying.It makes sense alright.
It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google's side as possible.
The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws?
Please!  Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market?
Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act?
Absurd.Actually, there are existing laws relating to the access of infrastructure which were created because of concerns such as trust issues.
Heck, they even had to mandate number portability to get the phone company to give them up.
As for automobiles, just ask a man called Tucker about the problems he had.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321974</id>
	<title>Re:Why the surprise?</title>
	<author>Bill\_the\_Engineer</author>
	<datestamp>1267437780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quiet! Or you'll spill the beans on how the DOJ changed course and decided to go after Microsoft under the orders of the new Clinton administration that needed to appease the California software industry in order to guarantee enough electoral votes for re-election.
</p><p>Next thing you know you'll bring up the fact that the Bush administration considered killing the case political suicide because it too needed the electoral votes for re-election, but instead decided to accept a very favorable (for Microsoft) settlement therefore ending the affair without sacrificing votes from California and Washington.
</p><p>How are we suppose to keep the charade of an independent court system, when you point out that the plaintiffs and judges are political appointments?
</p><p>Loose lips sinks ships<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quiet !
Or you 'll spill the beans on how the DOJ changed course and decided to go after Microsoft under the orders of the new Clinton administration that needed to appease the California software industry in order to guarantee enough electoral votes for re-election .
Next thing you know you 'll bring up the fact that the Bush administration considered killing the case political suicide because it too needed the electoral votes for re-election , but instead decided to accept a very favorable ( for Microsoft ) settlement therefore ending the affair without sacrificing votes from California and Washington .
How are we suppose to keep the charade of an independent court system , when you point out that the plaintiffs and judges are political appointments ?
Loose lips sinks ships ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quiet!
Or you'll spill the beans on how the DOJ changed course and decided to go after Microsoft under the orders of the new Clinton administration that needed to appease the California software industry in order to guarantee enough electoral votes for re-election.
Next thing you know you'll bring up the fact that the Bush administration considered killing the case political suicide because it too needed the electoral votes for re-election, but instead decided to accept a very favorable (for Microsoft) settlement therefore ending the affair without sacrificing votes from California and Washington.
How are we suppose to keep the charade of an independent court system, when you point out that the plaintiffs and judges are political appointments?
Loose lips sinks ships ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321852</id>
	<title>Re:Join the Tautology club</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1267437240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, there's an <a href="http://xkcd.com/703/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">xkcd comic</a> [xkcd.com] for this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , there 's an xkcd comic [ xkcd.com ] for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, there's an xkcd comic [xkcd.com] for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321796</id>
	<title>But it's no Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267437060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you can't beat em.... sue OR complain real loudly about how unfair a better product is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't beat em.... sue OR complain real loudly about how unfair a better product is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't beat em.... sue OR complain real loudly about how unfair a better product is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321604</id>
	<title>Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!</title>
	<author>Bill\_the\_Engineer</author>
	<datestamp>1267436460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow what a flame. Let's look at your points:
</p><blockquote><div><p>1) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice (EG, Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal, many others.)</p></div></blockquote><p>Google pays Mozilla and Canonical for making Google their default search engine choice.
</p><blockquote><div><p>2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose. If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hmm. Why was it okay to tolerate the poor desktop experience of past Linux distributions to "stop Microsoft" and yet it's not okay to make a search engine to "stop Google"? Competition is always good for the consumer.
</p><blockquote><div><p>3) Stinks heavily of yet another embrace and extend tactic, "now with 100\% More FUD!"</p></div></blockquote><p>Now you're being irrational. There is no standard API for web searches to embrace and extend.
</p><blockquote><div><p>As such, I refuse to use Bing, and I would think many other people would get tired of being bombarded with BING! every time they look for something on a M$ partnered site.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I see Google on almost every website I visit. Google is also the default search engine on both my Safari and Firefox browsers.
</p><blockquote><div><p> MS had partnered with the realestate brokerage to forbid closeup viewing of the property with highres sat images from Bing's mapping feature, without first greasing the pockets of the Realtor. I have experienced other forms of "Evil" from MS Bing, and am now firmly against ever supporting it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Offering value added services is not evil. There is nothing wrong with charging for highres sat images (hence the reason Google's free sat images isn't much better). The realtor probably paid for the service with the intention of offering it to its paid customers. Seems reasonable to me, and it doesn't prevent anyone else from offering highres sat images.
</p><blockquote><div><p>I have experienced other forms of "Evil" from MS Bing, and am now firmly against ever supporting it.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm sure the fact that Google signs your paycheck, may make using Bing hard to use too...
</p><p>I'm not a big fan of Microsoft. I also don't believe our interests are being served by giving Google a free pass either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow what a flame .
Let 's look at your points : 1 ) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice ( EG , Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal , many others .
) Google pays Mozilla and Canonical for making Google their default search engine choice .
2 ) Created expressly to " Stop Google " , rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose .
If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at , then I would consider it useful.Hmm .
Why was it okay to tolerate the poor desktop experience of past Linux distributions to " stop Microsoft " and yet it 's not okay to make a search engine to " stop Google " ?
Competition is always good for the consumer .
3 ) Stinks heavily of yet another embrace and extend tactic , " now with 100 \ % More FUD !
" Now you 're being irrational .
There is no standard API for web searches to embrace and extend .
As such , I refuse to use Bing , and I would think many other people would get tired of being bombarded with BING !
every time they look for something on a M $ partnered site .
I see Google on almost every website I visit .
Google is also the default search engine on both my Safari and Firefox browsers .
MS had partnered with the realestate brokerage to forbid closeup viewing of the property with highres sat images from Bing 's mapping feature , without first greasing the pockets of the Realtor .
I have experienced other forms of " Evil " from MS Bing , and am now firmly against ever supporting it.Offering value added services is not evil .
There is nothing wrong with charging for highres sat images ( hence the reason Google 's free sat images is n't much better ) .
The realtor probably paid for the service with the intention of offering it to its paid customers .
Seems reasonable to me , and it does n't prevent anyone else from offering highres sat images .
I have experienced other forms of " Evil " from MS Bing , and am now firmly against ever supporting it.I 'm sure the fact that Google signs your paycheck , may make using Bing hard to use too.. . I 'm not a big fan of Microsoft .
I also do n't believe our interests are being served by giving Google a free pass either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow what a flame.
Let's look at your points:
1) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice (EG, Verizon &amp; Blackberry ordeal, many others.
)Google pays Mozilla and Canonical for making Google their default search engine choice.
2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose.
If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.Hmm.
Why was it okay to tolerate the poor desktop experience of past Linux distributions to "stop Microsoft" and yet it's not okay to make a search engine to "stop Google"?
Competition is always good for the consumer.
3) Stinks heavily of yet another embrace and extend tactic, "now with 100\% More FUD!
"Now you're being irrational.
There is no standard API for web searches to embrace and extend.
As such, I refuse to use Bing, and I would think many other people would get tired of being bombarded with BING!
every time they look for something on a M$ partnered site.
I see Google on almost every website I visit.
Google is also the default search engine on both my Safari and Firefox browsers.
MS had partnered with the realestate brokerage to forbid closeup viewing of the property with highres sat images from Bing's mapping feature, without first greasing the pockets of the Realtor.
I have experienced other forms of "Evil" from MS Bing, and am now firmly against ever supporting it.Offering value added services is not evil.
There is nothing wrong with charging for highres sat images (hence the reason Google's free sat images isn't much better).
The realtor probably paid for the service with the intention of offering it to its paid customers.
Seems reasonable to me, and it doesn't prevent anyone else from offering highres sat images.
I have experienced other forms of "Evil" from MS Bing, and am now firmly against ever supporting it.I'm sure the fact that Google signs your paycheck, may make using Bing hard to use too...
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft.
I also don't believe our interests are being served by giving Google a free pass either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321074</id>
	<title>I'm confused...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1267434600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft's well-received Bing search engine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
</blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...I thought Bing (But It's Not Google) was a "Decision Engine".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's well-received Bing search engine .. . ...I thought Bing ( But It 's Not Google ) was a " Decision Engine " .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's well-received Bing search engine ...
 ...I thought Bing (But It's Not Google) was a "Decision Engine".
:-)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321462</id>
	<title>Which side is their delusion buttered on?</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1267435980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how their heads didn't explode writing it.  Roughly, Google's searches are better because more people use it.  We've got algorithms that don't depend on how many people are looking for data.  But we need more people using Bing so we can give better search results.<br>

Does MS have such a strong Reality Distortion Field that they can say ANY random, contradictory stuff and people will take them seriously?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how their heads did n't explode writing it .
Roughly , Google 's searches are better because more people use it .
We 've got algorithms that do n't depend on how many people are looking for data .
But we need more people using Bing so we can give better search results .
Does MS have such a strong Reality Distortion Field that they can say ANY random , contradictory stuff and people will take them seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how their heads didn't explode writing it.
Roughly, Google's searches are better because more people use it.
We've got algorithms that don't depend on how many people are looking for data.
But we need more people using Bing so we can give better search results.
Does MS have such a strong Reality Distortion Field that they can say ANY random, contradictory stuff and people will take them seriously?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320812</id>
	<title>What algo?</title>
	<author>molo</author>
	<datestamp>1267476840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google&rsquo;s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.</p></div><p>I don't think that is how pagerank or keyword search works.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But Bing needs to gain volume too, in order to increase the relevance of search results for less common search terms.</p></div><p>Sounds like Microsoft is doing it wrong.  That is a chicken-and-egg problem no matter whether Google exists or not.</p><p>-molo</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google    s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.I do n't think that is how pagerank or keyword search works.But Bing needs to gain volume too , in order to increase the relevance of search results for less common search terms.Sounds like Microsoft is doing it wrong .
That is a chicken-and-egg problem no matter whether Google exists or not.-molo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.I don't think that is how pagerank or keyword search works.But Bing needs to gain volume too, in order to increase the relevance of search results for less common search terms.Sounds like Microsoft is doing it wrong.
That is a chicken-and-egg problem no matter whether Google exists or not.-molo
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320948</id>
	<title>Pot == kettle == black?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267434060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure no one else sees irony here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure no one else sees irony here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure no one else sees irony here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31323252</id>
	<title>Re:Google make me nervous</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1267442520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When Google released Buzz, it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly, they'd be able to, and we'd have no recourse. With software on your own computer, you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's worth mentioning, however, that Google unfucked the situation in less than 48 hours.  Complete with deployment to everyone's Gmail account.</p><p>When Microsoft fucks you, you stay fucked until it's more profitable to pull out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Google released Buzz , it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly , they 'd be able to , and we 'd have no recourse .
With software on your own computer , you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.It 's worth mentioning , however , that Google unfucked the situation in less than 48 hours .
Complete with deployment to everyone 's Gmail account.When Microsoft fucks you , you stay fucked until it 's more profitable to pull out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Google released Buzz, it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly, they'd be able to, and we'd have no recourse.
With software on your own computer, you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.It's worth mentioning, however, that Google unfucked the situation in less than 48 hours.
Complete with deployment to everyone's Gmail account.When Microsoft fucks you, you stay fucked until it's more profitable to pull out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324366</id>
	<title>Re:Google make me nervous</title>
	<author>Maestro4k</author>
	<datestamp>1267448160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But Windows was always comparatively open -- they have the most open of all the proprietary ecosystems. You can write you own programs and install them wihtout anyone's permission, you data lives on your disk, and anyone can write a device driver. It's more open than OS X (which only runs on Apple's hardware), and it's a lot more open than platforms like the iPhone/iPad, which only run programs Apple approves.</p></div><p>That's an interesting definition of openness there.  What about all the problems in interfacing with Windows with 3rd party products like SAMBA?  How about all the hidden APIs that MS uses but didn't make available to others (at least until recently, I think they've opened up on those now).  Sure it was open from the standpoint of writing software to run on it, that is, unless MS decided they wanted to complete with your product and then started intentionally doing things to break your program (but of course their version wasn't affected.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It would be great if MS started pushing their openness as a selling point, and if they differentiated themselves from google in the cloud by being scrupulously responsible with our data.</p></div><p>Oh I would too, just so I could watch the circus that resulted as everyone pointed out how un-open MS really was and still is.  It'd be entertaining for a while at least.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Windows was always comparatively open -- they have the most open of all the proprietary ecosystems .
You can write you own programs and install them wihtout anyone 's permission , you data lives on your disk , and anyone can write a device driver .
It 's more open than OS X ( which only runs on Apple 's hardware ) , and it 's a lot more open than platforms like the iPhone/iPad , which only run programs Apple approves.That 's an interesting definition of openness there .
What about all the problems in interfacing with Windows with 3rd party products like SAMBA ?
How about all the hidden APIs that MS uses but did n't make available to others ( at least until recently , I think they 've opened up on those now ) .
Sure it was open from the standpoint of writing software to run on it , that is , unless MS decided they wanted to complete with your product and then started intentionally doing things to break your program ( but of course their version was n't affected .
) It would be great if MS started pushing their openness as a selling point , and if they differentiated themselves from google in the cloud by being scrupulously responsible with our data.Oh I would too , just so I could watch the circus that resulted as everyone pointed out how un-open MS really was and still is .
It 'd be entertaining for a while at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Windows was always comparatively open -- they have the most open of all the proprietary ecosystems.
You can write you own programs and install them wihtout anyone's permission, you data lives on your disk, and anyone can write a device driver.
It's more open than OS X (which only runs on Apple's hardware), and it's a lot more open than platforms like the iPhone/iPad, which only run programs Apple approves.That's an interesting definition of openness there.
What about all the problems in interfacing with Windows with 3rd party products like SAMBA?
How about all the hidden APIs that MS uses but didn't make available to others (at least until recently, I think they've opened up on those now).
Sure it was open from the standpoint of writing software to run on it, that is, unless MS decided they wanted to complete with your product and then started intentionally doing things to break your program (but of course their version wasn't affected.
)It would be great if MS started pushing their openness as a selling point, and if they differentiated themselves from google in the cloud by being scrupulously responsible with our data.Oh I would too, just so I could watch the circus that resulted as everyone pointed out how un-open MS really was and still is.
It'd be entertaining for a while at least.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321242</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267435260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>""Google&rsquo;s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google."</p><p>I know.  Maybe if Microsoft started <i>paying</i> people to use their search engine, or they paid some vendors to switch over to Bing being their exclusive search engine to generate more searches<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805\_3-10053855-75.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">Oh</a> [cnet.com], <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852\_3-10321566-71.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">wait</a> [cnet.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " Google    s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google .
" I know .
Maybe if Microsoft started paying people to use their search engine , or they paid some vendors to switch over to Bing being their exclusive search engine to generate more searches ...Oh [ cnet.com ] , wait [ cnet.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>""Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.
"I know.
Maybe if Microsoft started paying people to use their search engine, or they paid some vendors to switch over to Bing being their exclusive search engine to generate more searches ...Oh [cnet.com], wait [cnet.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321388</id>
	<title>Re:For once the system works</title>
	<author>kanweg</author>
	<datestamp>1267435800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only *abuse* of monopoly is taken action upon.</p><p>Bert</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only * abuse * of monopoly is taken action upon.Bert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only *abuse* of monopoly is taken action upon.Bert</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322038</id>
	<title>In other unrelated news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Hamas\_suicide\_attacks" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Hamas</a> [wikipedia.org] accuses Dubai assassins of cold-blooded murder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hamas [ wikipedia.org ] accuses Dubai assassins of cold-blooded murder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hamas [wikipedia.org] accuses Dubai assassins of cold-blooded murder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324346</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense really</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1267447920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Take it easy there. Google is not all that great at searches, it is just as M$ points out they aren't all that good at them and the need the governments upon a global basis to force more people to use MSN Search (I am sticking with that rather than the flavour of the month one), to make it better, promise. </p><p> The only thing that google really stands out in with regard to searches is street view ie. you search for a business that supplies that product you want, than scope out it's premises and check access and parking if you want to pick up product or meet with the suppliers of that product or service (also really usefully for emailing directions to your home). Apparently M$ has been politically playing in that arena as well due to their lack of a similar product. </p><p> Look all M$ has to do is stop changing the name and go back to the original, start providing uncensored (for marketing) results, do their own street view, completely separate the search company from the rest of M$ and Ballmer's control (don't even let him in the door) ie. drop all the bull and focus on providing quality search and expect to take years to slowly but surely grind away at google's lead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take it easy there .
Google is not all that great at searches , it is just as M $ points out they are n't all that good at them and the need the governments upon a global basis to force more people to use MSN Search ( I am sticking with that rather than the flavour of the month one ) , to make it better , promise .
The only thing that google really stands out in with regard to searches is street view ie .
you search for a business that supplies that product you want , than scope out it 's premises and check access and parking if you want to pick up product or meet with the suppliers of that product or service ( also really usefully for emailing directions to your home ) .
Apparently M $ has been politically playing in that arena as well due to their lack of a similar product .
Look all M $ has to do is stop changing the name and go back to the original , start providing uncensored ( for marketing ) results , do their own street view , completely separate the search company from the rest of M $ and Ballmer 's control ( do n't even let him in the door ) ie .
drop all the bull and focus on providing quality search and expect to take years to slowly but surely grind away at google 's lead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Take it easy there.
Google is not all that great at searches, it is just as M$ points out they aren't all that good at them and the need the governments upon a global basis to force more people to use MSN Search (I am sticking with that rather than the flavour of the month one), to make it better, promise.
The only thing that google really stands out in with regard to searches is street view ie.
you search for a business that supplies that product you want, than scope out it's premises and check access and parking if you want to pick up product or meet with the suppliers of that product or service (also really usefully for emailing directions to your home).
Apparently M$ has been politically playing in that arena as well due to their lack of a similar product.
Look all M$ has to do is stop changing the name and go back to the original, start providing uncensored (for marketing) results, do their own street view, completely separate the search company from the rest of M$ and Ballmer's control (don't even let him in the door) ie.
drop all the bull and focus on providing quality search and expect to take years to slowly but surely grind away at google's lead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320938</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1267434060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, that's the same as saying that Lady GaGa is more successful than your local garage band (because she gets played on (inter)national radio and more people are exposed since she is popular)...  Is that in itself a problem?  Nope.  It only becomes a problem if Google is using unfair business practices to maintain that level of success...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's the same as saying that Lady GaGa is more successful than your local garage band ( because she gets played on ( inter ) national radio and more people are exposed since she is popular ) ... Is that in itself a problem ?
Nope. It only becomes a problem if Google is using unfair business practices to maintain that level of success.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's the same as saying that Lady GaGa is more successful than your local garage band (because she gets played on (inter)national radio and more people are exposed since she is popular)...  Is that in itself a problem?
Nope.  It only becomes a problem if Google is using unfair business practices to maintain that level of success...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321792</id>
	<title>Re:For once the system works</title>
	<author>bunratty</author>
	<datestamp>1267437060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the definitions of <i>monopoly</i> I've seen, Google does not have a monopoly on search. Perhaps if they ever handle 90+\% of Internet searches, then they could be considered a monopoly. However, there are no laws in the US against simply <i>having</i> a monopoly. There are laws against <i>abusing</i> a monopoly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the definitions of monopoly I 've seen , Google does not have a monopoly on search .
Perhaps if they ever handle 90 + \ % of Internet searches , then they could be considered a monopoly .
However , there are no laws in the US against simply having a monopoly .
There are laws against abusing a monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the definitions of monopoly I've seen, Google does not have a monopoly on search.
Perhaps if they ever handle 90+\% of Internet searches, then they could be considered a monopoly.
However, there are no laws in the US against simply having a monopoly.
There are laws against abusing a monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321742</id>
	<title>Wait...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267436880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is complaining that Google's near monopoly in internet search gives them an unfair competitive advantage?!? Sounds like M$ simply took loaded some of the complaints against M$ into MS-Word and did a few global search &amp; replace operations, doesn't it? (e.g. "1,$s/Microsoft/Google/g")</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is complaining that Google 's near monopoly in internet search gives them an unfair competitive advantage ? ! ?
Sounds like M $ simply took loaded some of the complaints against M $ into MS-Word and did a few global search &amp; replace operations , does n't it ?
( e.g. " 1 , $ s/Microsoft/Google/g " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is complaining that Google's near monopoly in internet search gives them an unfair competitive advantage?!?
Sounds like M$ simply took loaded some of the complaints against M$ into MS-Word and did a few global search &amp; replace operations, doesn't it?
(e.g. "1,$s/Microsoft/Google/g")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321142</id>
	<title>Google make me nervous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267434900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't like the fact that Google is the overwhelmingly dominant search engine. The problem is I dislike Microsoft's dominance even more. From everything I have seen the only competitor for Google that meets my satisfaction criteria for a search engine is Bing. I am not about to move from Google to Microsoft. I am concerned that as Google's dominance grows the temptation to do bad things will grow until it becomes irresistable. However, while I have seen hints about Google abusing its dominant position, Microsoft has blatantly abused their dominant position in other areas. I am not about to contribute to the possibility of a Microsoft product becoming dominant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like the fact that Google is the overwhelmingly dominant search engine .
The problem is I dislike Microsoft 's dominance even more .
From everything I have seen the only competitor for Google that meets my satisfaction criteria for a search engine is Bing .
I am not about to move from Google to Microsoft .
I am concerned that as Google 's dominance grows the temptation to do bad things will grow until it becomes irresistable .
However , while I have seen hints about Google abusing its dominant position , Microsoft has blatantly abused their dominant position in other areas .
I am not about to contribute to the possibility of a Microsoft product becoming dominant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like the fact that Google is the overwhelmingly dominant search engine.
The problem is I dislike Microsoft's dominance even more.
From everything I have seen the only competitor for Google that meets my satisfaction criteria for a search engine is Bing.
I am not about to move from Google to Microsoft.
I am concerned that as Google's dominance grows the temptation to do bad things will grow until it becomes irresistable.
However, while I have seen hints about Google abusing its dominant position, Microsoft has blatantly abused their dominant position in other areas.
I am not about to contribute to the possibility of a Microsoft product becoming dominant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321082</id>
	<title>This is for the /. n00b's:</title>
	<author>You'reJustSlashFlock</author>
	<datestamp>1267434660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google: GOOD<br>
Microsoft: BAD</p><p>End of discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google : GOOD Microsoft : BADEnd of discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google: GOOD
Microsoft: BADEnd of discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31323252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31327156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31337238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31336668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31333156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31328138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31323212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31323216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_180243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31323252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31323216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31323212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31322144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31325320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31337238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31336668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31324346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31328138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31333156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31327156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31320916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_180243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_180243.31321974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
