|
ITC Extends Deadline, Asks for Briefs On Remedy & Public Interest Re Apple And Infringing Samsung FRAND Patents ~pj Update |
|
Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 07:44 PM EDT
|
I totally didn't expect this: The ITC has just posted a
notice [PDF] that it wants input on the public interest in the case Samsung brought against Apple regarding alleged violations of Samsung's standards-essential patents. That's in Inv. No. 337-TA-794, In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers. It has once again extended the deadline to announce its decision until May 31 as a result. It is asking for written submissions "from the parties and from the public" on the issues.
This is rather stunning. The Essential Patent Blog
says this may "imply that the Commission could be leaning toward a finding that Apple infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 – a patent that Samsung has alleged is essential to the UMTS 3G cellular standard — and is now trying to decide what if any remedy it should order."
Samsung initiated the investigation in August of 2011, alleging Apple was infringing 4 of Samsung's patents with its iPhones and iPads. On September 14, 2012 the presiding administrative law judge issued a final determination that there was no violation. Then on November 19, 2012, the Commission determined to review that determination "in its entirety" and asked for written submissions on certain patent issues, "on the assertion of FRAND-encumbered patents" at the Commission, and on "issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding." They got those.
Now this. It has, it says in the notice, "determined to seek additional information on the potential effect on the public interest, as identified in 19 U.S.C. Sections 1337(d)(1) and ((f)(1), if the Commission were to order remedies against articles alleged by Samsung to infringe claims 75, 76, and 82-84 of the '348 patent." Any interested persons are encouraged to file written submissions on the following issues:
1. How would remedial orders barring the entry and further distribution of the Apple articles alleged to infringe the asserted claims of the '348 patent affect the public interest....
2. What third, fourth, and later generation products (if any) are currently available in the US market that are authorized by Samsung to utilize the technoloty covered by the asserted claims of the '348 patent? Are these products acceptable substitutes for the accused iPhones and iPads and are they widely viewed to be acceptable substitutes for the accused iPhones and iPads?
3. In what ways, if any, should a remedy with respect to infringement of the '348 patent be specifically tailored to avoid harm to the public interest...? In addressing this issue, the Commission requests that submitters avoid discussing issues related to standards-setting organizations, as the record concerning those issues has been well developed....
4. With respect to the '348 patent, Samsung's infringement case before the Commision relied upon accused third and fourth generation Apple products that operate on the AT&T wireless network If the Commission were to issue remedial orders covering articles covered by the asserted claims of the '348 patent, would such an order cover (a) Apple products that operate on other wireless networks in the United States, and (b) later generation Apple products (e.g., iPhone 5, later iPad versions)?
5. Please summarize the history to date of negotiations between Samsung and Apple...
6. Please summarize all licenses to the '348 patent granted by Samsung to any entity....
7. Samsung and Apple are each requested to submit specific licensing terms for the '348 patent that each believes are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatlry....
8. Which factors in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) are most relevant to determining whether Samsung has offered to license the '348 patent to Apple on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms?...
4 through 8 are for the parties. The '348 patent is US Patent Number 7,706,348. Matt Rizzolo, Esq., of The Essential Patent Blog has this take on what it means:
The issues identified in these particular questions show that Apple and Samsung’s attorneys certainly have their work cut out for them over the next few weeks — it appears that the ITC may undertake a full-blown FRAND evidentiary analysis in April and May, similar to what Judge Robart is currently going through in the Microsoft-Motorola case.
Interestingly, the ITC’s order notes that “a dissenting memorandum from Commission Aranoff can be found on EDIS,” which is the ITC’s docketing system. The dissenting statement is not yet available as of the time of this post, but we will do an updated post when it becomes available. But in the meantime, it once again looks like we’ll have to wait a few more months for certainty from the ITC on standard-essential patent issues.
Update: Susan Decker at Bloomberg News has some interesting analysis from another attorney, plus a bit more about possibilities going forward:
The agency may be trying to fashion a compromise giving Apple time to work around or license the patent, or to deny an import ban because of the impact on consumers and the competitive market, said Rodney Sweetland, a lawyer with Duane Morris in Washington who specializes in ITC cases.
“Were they not thinking about a violation, they would not need to ask for further information of this nature,” Sweetland said in a telephone interview. ...
The last time the ITC decided against issuing an import ban after finding a violation was in 1984, when it found that barring hospital beds designed for burn victims would harm patients who might not be able to get the equipment. In a patent case won by Apple against HTC Corp. (2498), the commission gave the Taiwanese handset maker time to design around the Apple invention.
Any import ban would have to be reviewed by President Barack Obama and the U.S. Trade Representative, who have the authority to reject an exclusion order on public policy grounds. The last time that happened, President Ronald Reagan in 1987 overturned an import ban on Samsung memory chips, Sweetland said.
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
Can the 'Public's Interest' be guarded best on a
case-by-case basis or is it best served by measures
based on a broader perspective.
Incidental and ad-hoc versus structural.
That is the question.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 08:43 PM EDT |
.
Use your power. Block all products that violate SEP's. That
will show the absurdity of permitting standards with patents.
Thank you,
one from the public
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dear webster: - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:13 AM EDT
- Dear ITC: - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:58 AM EDT
- How would you deal with 'SEP' patent pools? ...nt - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 03:32 AM EDT
- Neat. Presumably all smartphones infringe an 'SEP' actively asserted by a competitor -n/t - Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 04:55 AM EDT
- SEP = ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 07:03 AM EDT
- Baby, ..., Bathwater - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 06:26 AM EDT
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 08:46 PM EDT |
Please summarize in the Title box error->correction or s/error/correction/ to
make it easy to scan see what needs to be corrected and to avoid duplication of
effort.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
Please stay off topic in these threads. Use HTML Formatted mode to make your
links nice and clickable.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple's Schiller blasts Android, Samsung on Galaxy's eve - Authored by: N_au on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 10:13 PM EDT
- how could apple use less? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 11:09 PM EDT
- Whaddaya mean "log in"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:11 AM EDT
- Apple's Schiller LOOKS WORRIED :-D - Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 03:38 AM EDT
- Apple's Schiller & Apple distortion field - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 08:10 AM EDT
- Apple's Schiller blasts Android, Samsung on Galaxy's eve - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 08:16 AM EDT
- he's crossed a line - Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:00 PM EDT
- he's crossed a line - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 06:56 PM EDT
- nope - Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 11:28 AM EDT
- straight up denial by apple - Authored by: designerfx on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- Apple's Schiller blasts Android, Samsung on Galaxy's eve - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- Apple's Schiller anti-Android campaign - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- Apple's Schiller blasts Android, Samsung on Galaxy's eve - Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:32 PM EDT
- I use 2 accounts... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:57 PM EDT
- I have an Android device - and Zero accounts - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Very good answer to Mr. Schiller's comments - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 03:46 PM EDT
- In other news, S(c)hiller (probably) blasts google single sign-in - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 04:09 AM EDT
- Fair Use Win - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 10:28 PM EDT
- European Court of Human Rights rejects appeal PiarateBay leaders - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:13 AM EDT
- Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Public Domain - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:47 AM EDT
- Happy Pi Day - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 07:48 AM EDT
- UPDATE 1-Analysis "strongly indicates" Higgs boson found - CERN - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 07:56 AM EDT
- Boys, retention, and multiple regression - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:19 PM EDT
- What's Fake about Canada's Anti-Counterfeiting Bill - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:27 PM EDT
- "AVG's anti-virus software mistook a Windows system file for a trojan..." - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- One last chance for Prenda Law? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- Think Progress defends Justices Roberts' and Thomas' record on social issue. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 07:13 PM EDT
- Top Credit Agencies Say Hackers Stole Celebrity Reports - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 07:38 PM EDT
- You Only Click Twice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 08:03 PM EDT
- Which Linux Distro? - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 08:44 PM EDT
- I vote for Mageia - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 09:03 PM EDT
- Mint - Authored by: cassini2006 on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 09:54 PM EDT
- The usual reply - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 09:58 PM EDT
- Which Linux Distro? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 10:56 PM EDT
- The unhelpful answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:46 PM EDT
- Which Linux Distro? - Authored by: Wol on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 04:55 AM EDT
- Which Linux Distro? - Authored by: PJ on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 05:03 AM EDT
- Virtualbox images - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 07:06 AM EDT
- Which Linux Distro? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 08:12 AM EDT
- Which Linux Distro? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 08:24 AM EDT
- Crunchbang is neat, also try something with XFCE - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 10:20 AM EDT
- Which Linux Distro? - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 11:27 AM EDT
- Samsung S IV hands-on: First look - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 08:57 PM EDT
- Netflix on Linux Distros - Authored by: UncleVom on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:28 PM EDT
- New results indicate that particle discovered at CERN is a Higgs boson - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:28 PM EDT
- ADTI on Wikipedia - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 10:16 AM EDT
- Mozilla’s Intention to Block Third-Party Cookies Bad for Business - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- Hacked for fun - Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 12:49 PM EDT
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
Please type the title of the News Picks article in the Title box of your
comment, and include the link to the article in HTML Formatted mode for the
convenience of the readers after the article has scrolled off the News Picks
sidebar.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Herbalife lawsuits - Authored by: mpellatt on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:33 AM EDT
- Bill Gates' exploding radioactive landfill , I will take the Blue Screen of DEATH anyday - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 04:12 AM EDT
- Pi day - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Pi day - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:05 AM EDT
- Pi day - Authored by: julian on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:16 AM EDT
- Pi day - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:25 AM EDT
- Pi day - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:46 AM EDT
- Pi day - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:30 PM EDT
- Pi day - Authored by: Wol on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 04:47 AM EDT
- Pi day - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 05:33 AM EDT
- Pi day - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 10:44 AM EDT
- Pi day - Authored by: albert on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- Google yanks ad-blocker apps from Google Play - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:47 PM EDT
- No problem - Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- I have that ticked - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:25 PM EDT
- Try f-droid - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 08:26 AM EDT
- Google yanks ad-blocker apps from Google Play - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- G$$gle ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- uh, no - Authored by: designerfx on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 08:58 AM EDT
- uh, no - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- Block Your Own Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 03:46 PM EDT
- Google yanks ad-blocker apps from Google Play - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 06:49 AM EDT
- Zero requirement to have an account? - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, March 16 2013 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- Hitler Finds Out that Google Reader Is Being Shut Down, with help from Netapp - Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:19 PM EDT
- Teens and Technology - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 06:37 PM EDT
- Another Day of Reckoning Scheduled For Prenda Law - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 08:32 PM EDT
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 08:49 PM EDT |
Please post your transcriptions of Comes exhibits here with full HTML markup but
posted in Plain Old Text mode so PJ can copy and paste it
See the Comes
Tracking Page to find and claim PDF files that still need to be
transcribed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:48 AM EDT |
I'm still trying to understand PJ and this website's view on patents.
We hate all patents? Or we hate all patent lawsuits against companies we
like?
Wtf is the message here? SEPs= non SEPs, but I thought you hate all
patents?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 04:03 AM EDT |
Submitting any patent for inclusion in a standard _should_ be an unlimited,
free, and irrevocable license to use that patent in implementing that standard.
That is putting your patent in for consideration as a standard should be
considered a public grant. Period.
Nothing else is rational.
Legally, it should be illegal to take a toll on the "only way"
something may be done, once that "only way" is codified by other means
(such as a public standard, legislation, or main force).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 04:26 AM EDT |
Returning to a theme of earlier comments on previous threads.
I have
previously drawn attention to holding of the Supreme Court in EBay Inc.
v. MercExchange (Supreme court opinion here. The Statute (35 USC,
section 283) provides that
The several courts having
jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with
the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by
patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.
The
Supreme Court, in eBay, held that the "principles of equity"
are the same in Patent Law as in other areas of law, and therefore Federal
courts are required to apply the "traditional four-factor test" before
granting either preliminary or permanent injunctions for patent infringement.
People following the Apple v. Samsung litigation before Judge Koh might
have observed that decisions of Judge Koh regarding preliminary injunctions were
twice appealed to the Federal Circuit, and that the Federal Circuit required her
to determine whether or not there exists a "causal nexus" between the
(alleged) infringement of Apple's patents by Samsung and the harm to Apple's
business interests resulting from competition with Samsung. On that basis both
preliminary and permanent injunctions were denied. My understanding is that the
decisions of the Federal Circuit in this case are precedents that help establish
the case law of the Federal Circuit with regard to the grant of injunctions for
patent infringement following eBay. The forthcoming appeal against Judge
Koh's refusal to grant a permanent injunction will presumably be particularly
significant in establishing the case law of the Federal Circuit regarding the
grant of permanent injunctions following verdicts of patent
infringement.
Apparently the statutory basis for the grant of
injunctions by the ITC is different. The ITC determines whether or not to grant
injunctions on the basis of "statutory public interest" not on the
basis of "principles of equity", and therefore the Supreme Court
holding in eBay does not apply to them.
According to a posting on The Essential Patent Blog
The Staff
also takes issue with Huawei/Nokia/ZTE’s arguments about the propriety of
seeking exclusionary orders on FRAND-encumbered standard-essential patents —
arguing that the ITC “has not yet held that a patent-holder may not (or even
should not) seek exclusionary relief in the first instance where a FRAND-related
defense is asserted.” The Staff distinguishes between injunctions in federal
courts — an equitable remedy — with the statutory-based remedy of an exclusion
order that is issued by the ITC. The Staff notes that the Federal Circuit has
held that the decision whether to grant or deny an exclusion order is based on
statutory public interest factors, not the equitable principles as recited in
the eBay v. MercExchange case — and states that it is “unaware of any court that
has held that the statutory remedy of an exclusion order is (or should be
unavailable where a respondent in a section 337 investigation has asked a
federal district court to set a FRAND royalty rate.”
It should
also be noted that, although the Supreme Court has required Federal Courts and
the Federal Circuit to apply "principles of equity" and the
"traditional four-factor test", the patent lawyers and judges
themselves believe that the grant of an injunction should normally follow a
verdict of patent infringement. This stems from their theory as to how Patent
Law encourages innovation. The idea, as I understand it, is that the monopoly
granted to the patent owner not only serves the public interest in rewarding the
patent owner, but also forces competitors to "invent around" the
patent, thereby applying their ingenuity and creativity to find alternative ways
of achieving their goal. In consequence, the constant necessity to keep
"inventing around" patents granted to competitors generates more
useful discoveries and innovation. (Note that I am simply stating here that
this is the rationale that patent lawyers, judges and professors adopt with
regard to the purposes of patent law. I am not suggesting that this is my own
view, or that it is universally applicable.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
- The claims of the 7,706,348 patent are
undeniably drawn to a mathematical algorithm. This conclusion follows from
references to an "orthogonal sequence generator" and "basis
biorthogonal sequence" in the patent claims.
- The patent is drawn
to a useful application of the algorithm (involving methods for cellphones to
connect to networks).
- Those ignorant of US patent law might claim that
mathematical algorithms were not patent-eligible, or might naively assume that
the claims of this particular patent were ineligible in accordance with the
holdings of the Supreme Court in Benson and Flook, notwithstanding
the fact that the patent discloses a 'useful' and presumably 'inventive'
application of the disclosed algorithm.
- Judge Rich cogently and
robustly exposed the fallacies in such arguments in his State Street opinion, refuting
any notion that arguments concerning either the "mathematical algorithm
exception" or the "business method exception" had any relevance
for the patentability of software applications.
- The State
Street dicta may currently be on life support, thanks to the inroads of the
Supreme Court in Bilski and Mayo, and the Supreme Court would
appear at least to have lopped off the "useful, concrete and tangible"
head of State Street, but the State Street hydra has many heads.
The dicta on the "mathematical algorithm exception" have not been
overturned, so far as I am aware. And even if the Supreme Court remains minded
to kill off the monster, it would probably take years to dispatch all the
heads.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Initial observations on the 7,706,348 patent - Authored by: drakaan on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 10:12 AM EDT
- Digital circuit....??? as opposed to.... physical circuit??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- abstract and physical - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Obfuscation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- Initial observations on the 7,706,348 patent - Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 10:32 AM EDT
- Are you 'importing claim limitations from the specification'? - Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 12:39 PM EDT
- There was disagreement! Federal Circuit en banc, In Re Alappat, 1994 - Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 02:01 PM EDT
- The patent concerns an error-correcting code - Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 10:26 AM EDT
- Claim construction - the 7,706,348 patent - Authored by: macliam on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 01:38 PM EDT
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 09:13 AM EDT |
I think it might be useful for the "public" to comment on at least
some of these, including especially 5. The world wide thermonuclear exchanges
between Apple and Samsung as well as Microsoft's apparent role are unlikely to
be fully disclosed by the parties.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
Everyone seems to glance over the words "public interest" applying
some
presumption about what that adverb-verb combination really means.
Is there a official definition somewhere that defines "public
interest"?
Are any of the ITC claims or request reasonable when viewed in light of this
specific definition (it it exists)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
.
Let's hope this works.
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 04:15 PM EDT |
Especially when the design patents were stolen from previous devices or objects
of time frame equivalent devices.
Clay tablet/stylus anyone? Rectangular with rounded corners? That design for
*tablets* has been around for more than 2000 years thank you very much!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|