Intellectual Property Rights: The Quiet Killer of Rio+20 198
ericjones12398 writes "Richard Phillips, president of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, sent a powerful message to Washington the day before the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development regarding the U.S. intellectual property community's stance on sharing IPR with developing nations. Philips argued any language included in the Rio+20 final declaration compromising the existing IP regime would discourage investment and destroy trade secrets. 'Any references to technology transfer should be clearly qualified and conditioned to include only voluntary transfer of IPR on mutually agreed terms.' The IPO has no interest in helping developing countries transition to a more sustainable economy if it means sacrificing valuable IPR. And the IPO's chilly message set the tone for what many pundits and participants considered a disappointing Rio+20 conference yielding few substantive results."
I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The IPO has no interest in helping developing countries transition to a more sustainable economy if it means sacrificing valuable IPR.
In other stunning news, the rich still have it better than the poor, politicians don't have the best interests of their citizens at heart, and 2013 won't be the "Year of Linux."
Since when has anyone WITH that much valuable IP ever given it up freely? Oh sure, here and there, a token gesture. But does anyone really expect Monsanto or Intel to give up their *entire business model* and *everything that makes them money* tomorrow because some third-world country is poor? Not likely.
And to be brutally honest, how is it really fair to ask them to? If they paid for the R&D, why should someone else be entitled to it without paying a cent? Is it some first-world tech company's fault that your country is poor, that your government is too corrupt to invest in its infrastructure instead of padding El-Presidente's pockets, that your education system is a joke? Sure it would be a great charitable gesture for them to give it to you at a big discount, but that hardly gives you the right to *demand* it. You're certainly not entitled to it just because you're poor. And it probably wouldn't even do you any good, in the long term anyway, unless you deal with the underlying problems in your country that put you in poverty to begin with (El Presidente will just stuff his pockets deeper with any new money too).
Re:I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately, the laws that magically make "intellectual property" "exist" are national laws.
Any poor country can create such things, or not, as it chooses.
Monsanto and Intel don't really have any choice as to whether or not their monopoly rights exist in a given country.
That's up to the country.
Re:I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Any poor country can create such things, or not, as it chooses.
But just think - if a small third-world company started manufacturing, say drugs that the local people who live on a dollar a day need, earning perhaps a trivial profit, it would be the end of the 1st world countries!
As if the idea weren't already impeding the progress [stephankinsella.com] of the arts and useful sciences. Because a company like Apple would never use such a system to try to band the competition from the marketplace or anything...
Re:I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it wouldn't be the end of patent holders, as long as those developing countries help their local people and do not export any of their production. For example http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/03/13/1716206/indian-govt-uses-special-powers-to-slash-cancer-drug-price-by-97 [slashdot.org] would work if India keeps all production inside their borders.
What the IP holders fear (and rightly so) is that these countries will use the technology not only to help their people, but to supplant their benefactors in the future. I think a balance can be worked out with technology transfers based on a period of export restriction for the recipient country.
Re: (Score:2)
Law of unintended consequences.
If they don't want the terminator gene to be widely deployed they will just have to pay up. There are technical solutions to national R&D freeloading.
That said even in the first world patents run for only 20 years. Companies could potentially keep secrets for longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, If they could reliably keep something secret for longer than 20 years in a certain instance, they wouldn't seek a patent on it, and right now, seeking patents is entirely voluntary.
Re: (Score:2)
And when the value of patents falls more will just keep secrets, just like they did before patents were issued.
Like I said, unintended consequences.
I've asked this on this site many times. How do you make a Stradivarius? Losing knowledge like that is a cost of _not_ having patents.
Re:I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. I call bullshit.
We can see what is different about Stradivariuses (wood pores are wide open), but we don't know what varnishing process was used.
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of tests have been done, here's a good one:
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760 [pnas.org]
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius#Comparisons_in_sound_quality [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of tests have been done. There is nothing special about those violins.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's bad how? Just because they try to keep secrets doesn't mean that they will actually manage to do so successfully. If they could, they would be idiots to seek patents. The argument that patents reduce trade secrets is an obvious joke. The decent rationalization is that it spurs on R&D funding, although that doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny either.
Re: (Score:2)
You market the hell out of a name and make them expensive enough that only really good players can get one.
Look it up yourself, there is nothing magic about those violins.
I have said it many times and will again, people will not stop creating for lack of protection, they did before.
Re: (Score:2)
this is bullshit.
You don't need a patent to make software.
Patent for a stradivarious is for making a physical product.
Let's not strawman this shit into oblivion, please.
When a software patent expires, the knowledge doesn't "magically disappear" people just start doing what they could have done the last X years that the patent existed. It's a monopoly, not a benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
The key to the Stradivarius is the material, not the design. The design is the same as every other violin, or it wouldn't be a violin.
Re:I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is when we were a basically a 3rd world nation, right after we became a nation we ripped off everyone's IP.
Without that step you can never really get to a point at which you can create a workable economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As is the English national anthem. The same drinking song.
National anthems... (Score:2)
My Country 'Tis of Thee (tune of "God Save the King/Queen") isn't the U.S. national anthem...
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell if you are trying to be funny or not, but the US national anthem is the "Star Spangled Banner." The lyrics are from a poem by Francis Scott Key. These lyrics, written during the War of 1812, were eventually matched to the English drinking song "To Anacreon in Heaven."
On the other hand the English (UK) don't have an official national anthem. "God Save the King/Queen" is probably the closest approximation. While the origin of the lyrics and tune are not known, it probably dates back to the 17
Re: (Score:2)
While you may have a point about Cuba, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of third-world countries aren't under any economic sanctions from the the first-world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We kept the rest of the third world impoverished by trading with them (or something).
We kept Cuba impoverished by not trading with them (or something).
When your axiom is 'The poverty in the third world is manufactured' you twist everything to support that view.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't trade with them as much as bribe their leaders to allow western companies to shuttle natural resources out of the country for ridiculously low prices. When leaders try to nationalize oil/banana/ore production, they are suddenly branded dictators/communists (see Venezuela, Guatemala, Congo, etc).
Re: (Score:3)
Cuba is a bad example since the reason for their sanctions has absolutely nothing to do with what you said.
The reason for the sanctions is that the US paid for a revolution and then the people of Cuba had the gall to go communist.
Re: (Score:2)
Cuba was sanctioned for having strong welfare, education and medical policies designed to bring them up to first world status.
I thought it was because they were aligned with the Soviet Union, and also because they nationalized billions worth of US assets.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The poverty in the third world is manufactured, not in the sense that it wasn't there before and someone created it, but in the sense that it would have naturally faded away by now if powerful rich nations weren't working their asses of to perpetuate it. Cuba is a nice example, they got the sanctions for having strong welfare, education and medical policies designed to bring them up to first world status.
Bullshit.
Poverty in the third world is manufactured by the corrupt, miserable leadership of the third
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Poverty in the third world is manufactured by the corrupt, miserable leadership of the third world.
False dichotomy. Corrupt, miserable leadership exists in many parts of the world. Italy and Greece are two examples off the top of my head. The corruption and miserable leadership - in my part of the developing world, at least - is assisted in no small part by wealthy business people and corporations from the developed world who are willing to grease palms in order to gain easier access to resources, to ignore workplace safety requirements, to hire at substandard wages and sometimes to commit acts of viole
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, the laws that magically make "intellectual property" "exist" are national laws. Any poor country can create such things, or not, as it chooses.
Apparently, you've never heard of the IMF and how they operate on global trade.
Re:I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem TFA specifically addresses is the problem of pollution and "green" technology. The developed world, understandably, has done most of the research in that field. What the IPO is basically saying is they don't give a shit if the developing world gets clean technology or not. That severely hampers the ability of developing nations to control pollution and CO2 emissions, even if they want to, which can have a global impact down the line on the entire planet. And that is frankly the problem, because it would mean the short-term selfishness of the corporations (in and of itself actually understandable and acceptable, in many ways: they're in it for the profit, after all) will, in the long term, do tremendous damage to the planet (which is not acceptable).
Not to mention it is in the best interest of the world for undeveloped countries to develop stably, not just for pollution concerns. An unsustainable but otherwise relatively developed country is a recipe for World War III, in the long run. Possibly even nuclear war, if they are developed enough and desperate enough.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing stopping governments from doing the R&D themselves. But you can't very well let a private company foot the bill and then turn around, after the company spent all the money on the tech and are looking to sell products based on it, and tell them "We're taking it and giving it away." That's just glorified theft.
Again, the governments could pay for the research *themselves*, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Governments do sponsor a lot of the development, either through contracts/loan support (like Solyndra) or through university research (which may be direct or simply letting them use the facilities cheaply). In any case, they aren't trying to "take it away", what they want is for them to sell the technology at below market prices. Realistically speaking, the companies will make back their research profits selling in developed countries anyways (or they would never have developed it in the first place). What
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as common as Basloroth makes it sound, but there is a real way for it to happen, and not just for cases where the profit is trivial by comparison with the main market. The corporation simply does a marketability study, and never even looks at the possibility of selling below a certain thereshold, a threshold set high enough there's points below it where they stand to mae only a few cents per unit, but sell enough units that there could be a serious profit on very high volume. If you don't think tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The governments already pay for a lot of the research
So rather than glorified theft from a private company, it would be glorified theft from tax payers. This is more acceptable, how?
Because tax money is FREE! Duh.
Details. (Score:3)
Big picture ideas, fail when details get in the way, and people are unable to find an appropriate compromise, and take your opponents view into account.
For Example... Lets simplify the US tax plan, and get rid of all those loopholes that the 1 percent use to get off tax free. ....
Well what about deductions for charity?
How about investing in your retirement?
Well you have kids?
You shortly find the simple idea of making the Tax Plan easy and fair quickly comes up with a lot of details that you find, that there
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
- Not needed, people keeping more of their tax money will have more to give.
- Not needed, people keeping more of their tax money will have more to save for retirement.
- Not needed, people keeping more of their tax money will have more to spend on raising children. And aside from
Re: (Score:2)
Numbers by the WHO (for 2005) say that US spends 15% of GDP on healthcare when you ad
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well what about deductions for charity? ....
How about investing in your retirement?
Well you have kids?
None of those deductions should exist. I say this as someone impacted by 2 of the 3.
You shortly find the simple idea of making the Tax Plan easy and fair quickly comes up with a lot of details that you find, that there are not easy answers too.
Somethings do have easy answers.
All income should be taxed at the same level based on a simple progressive tax scheme. No deductions means no loopholes.
Re: (Score:2)
I have two special needs children, and I was able to take advantage of the child tax credit, child care deduction, and out-of-pocket medical expenses. That said, the tax savings were not spectacular compared to what I have had to pay above and beyond what a typical middle-class family has to pay to cover their essential living expenses. I would much rather pay a simple tax without deductions and such. Even a flat tax wouldn't be a bad tradeoff to avoid the hassle and potential criminal liability in makin
Re: (Score:2)
No I mean all types of income would be taxed on the same progressive tax scheme. Meaning the first $X at Y% and the next $Z at AA%, no matter the source of that money.
I assumed slashdot posters read at at least the 8th grade level. Clearly you have proved me wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
That "exception" is rapidly becoming the rule, at least in the US.
I also know plenty of extremely poor people who easily work just as hard and sacrifice as much as as the wealthy. "taking risks" is just code words for "had enough money to take risks with" and wasn't a complete idiot. In my experience who you know is far more important than any of those factors anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Social mobility in the US (and everywhere else) is decreasing ... there are a lot of golden spoons.
Re: (Score:2)
taxing the rich is actually very, very simple - luxury taxes are very simple to implement, it's very very simple to tax expensive cars to be more expensive for example(luxury cars in america are very cheap - just ask linus). it's very easy to tax alcohol on a progressive scale too(what's that you ask? well fuck, you ever heard of a poor guy drinking a 100$ bottle of whiskey? it might just as well be taxed to 200).
spending less on things like gitmo is actually very, very simple as well. paying less to cia is
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming that by "successful" you mean "rich", and if so you're rather dramatically wrong. Today the most imporant factor in accumlation of personal wealth is starting out with a pile of money that you can then make into a larger pile of money, or at least pay someone else to make your pile larger (i.e. Paris Hilton). The next most important factor is connections,
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't people ever admit that you are full of shit? They pay sales tax, property tax, SS, the list goes on and on. They might not pay any income tax, but that is not the same as paying no tax.
That half is also broke. You can't get blood from a stone.
Re: (Score:2)
Speeking of being 'full of shit'. Sales tax only (which is state and local). As you well know SS is refunded as the 'earned income tax credit'. They don't pay a penny towards the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for 50% of the population. Lots of people get their Federal taxes nearly all back but don't get an EIC.
Also they pay highway taxes on fuel. Where do folks who do no qualify for an EIC, more than 50% of our population get that back?
Re: (Score:2)
Tax the churches, that would be a very good first step....
And all the other charitable organizations, too, right? No more 501 tax exemptions at all. Government SS, Welfare, and Medicare/Medicaid is all we need (because bureaucracies are so much more efficient than private, volunteer-run charities, right?). Sure, that will fix things. Cities have already been banning anyone from feeding the homeless - that should be a national law, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
IF, and only IF, ELSE what? Because, you know, it very rare for the big companies to actually invent something new. They do prefer to buy it. Look GOOGLE for example, except their search engine and gmail (which now is becoming more and more bloated), there is NOTHING else that they did invent. Literally. ZERO.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Search was originally developed and hosted by Stanford University. Google benefited from a Federal grant and was allowed to maintain the rights (via licensing from Stanford) to the intellectual property, but only because the Bayh-Dole Act made an allowance for this. Without Bayh-Dole, this wouldn't have been possible, as the intellectual property created by the grant would have been property of the Federal government. So as for the Google example, Google Inc., in actuality, never really invented a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't give it up for free. First world countries should give up their tech as long as the recipients guarantee cuts of pollution in return. This is the system every global ecological problam should be handled: for example, instead of blaming the poor Brasilians because of deforestation, the Western world (that has already cut down most of its forests) should hire the forest areas giving third world countries an income and incentive to preserve. This is how Kyoto is supposed to work, unfortunately t
Re: (Score:2)
Because of course industrialized nations don't rely at all on the resources from "third world hell holes", as you put it.
Re: (Score:3)
AGW is the consensus view of an overwhelming number of climatologists and researchers in related fields. As I always say, the Universe doesn't give a fuck about the Third World, about your particular favorite socio-economic philosophical stance, about whether gas is cheap or expensive. If AGW is happening, your political leanings mean absolutely fucking nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
If AGW is happening, then your political leanings dictate if you get to live in a huge house next to Al Gore or in a green shanty designed lesson your impact on the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a complete falsehood.
I've got to love it. The deniers either deny there is a consensus, or use the consensus to claim a flaw.
Make no mistake. The vast majority of climatologists accept AGW, and the above poster is a lying sack of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a logical fallacy for arguing like a talking head? Because you just committed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Denier is a descriptive term. The fact that you take it as a pejorative is very telling.
Re: (Score:3)
That's some mighty industrious reasoning you got there, son.
Re: (Score:2)
Finding out why might be a good idea.
Heck, giving them some of it might be a wise idea. It can be cheaper to spend a little on educating that criminal into a functional member of society than to let him continue to live this way.
Re: (Score:2)
It might, in some cases, be a wise idea to give a poor person/country some gold.
It is never a wise idea to give someone threatening you gold, give them high velocity copper jacketed led. If you must, throw them a nickle then shoot them when they bend to get it.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not suggest paying them off. I suggested fixing the underlying problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Imperialist! They need to fix _their_ problems. The other approach has been tried.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok nutcase, I did not mean go in and do it.
I mean assist in fixing the issues. I mean not standing in their way as we currently do by sanctioning nations if they dare make their own drugs. Never mind that we founded our nation by ripping off IP.
Re: (Score:2)
Finding out why might be a good idea.
Heck, giving them some of it might be a wise idea. It can be cheaper to spend a little on educating that criminal into a functional member of society than to let him continue to live this way.
Education? "Use a gun when you want money" is your idea of educating?
Re: (Score:2)
What is "sustainable development" anyways, and why should the UN be concerned with it anyways? Most countries that need "development" are festering cesspools of corruption, nepotism and cronyism, and don't see how throwing a bunch of resources at the problem is going to do anything except give the leaders more to pillage from their countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Sustainable development is easy. My computer models show as much. For example, once you're done punching a tree to pieces, replant a few of the saplings that drop as the floating foliage evaporates. Potable water? A 2x2 well provides infinite buckets of it. Crops can be expanded indefinitely if you collect the seeds from your wheat harvests for replanting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"....are festering cesspools of corruption, nepotism and cronyism, and don't see how throwing a bunch of resources at the problem is going to do anything except give the leaders more to pillage from their countries."
What, like the USA is any different?
Good example. What's the the result of throwing more resources at it? More corruption, more tyranny, and more asking for more resources. Obviously, that method is not just a complete failure, but is proven to exacerbate the problem.
Re:I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but.. (Score:4, Funny)
They make more money than me. Therefore, they are too rich and their wealth should be re-distributed, preferably to groups that include me.
This sounds so much like the slogan of the "Rio+20 Summit", your post should probably be modded Redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama? Is that you? You summed up every loser on this site.
Rush? Is that you? You summed up every dittohead who thinks they understand the topic they have an opinion on.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, ideology is always just a tall, cool drink of water, isn't it? Refreshing! New ideas!
Wasn't anybody else expecting Rio+20 to fail? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading the MSM I got the impression I'm was the only person in the world expecting the conference to fail. I always assumed that was because MSM is stupid, but came-on, here too?
Why would anybody expect any agreement? Wasn't Kyoto enough to show that nobody wants to commit, and everybody wants everybody else to? There is no more easy stuff to do for the environment (like banning CFCs), nobody will reach an agreement on anything hard. Claiming the failure is due to any cause, but lack of commitment is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically CFCs have been replaced with chemicals that by some estimates have one hundred times the green house effect when they do get released. So in saving the Ozone we have made AGW worse.
The simple fact is that cutting emissions is stupid. Most of the science suggests that we are already on a path that is sure to exceed the point where the oceans will become loaded with enough hydrogen sulfide to completely destroy our ecosystem. Possibly within a few hundred years and that IF we cut emissions beyo
I seriously doubt... (Score:4, Insightful)
...that the the IPO’s "chilly message" set the tone for anything at Rio +20. It was doomed from the start and everyone involved knew it.
One look at the drafts of the ridiculous "The Future We Want" document is sufficient to explain the failure of Rio +20. No "chilly message" from IP owners is required.
The soup had too many cooks . . . (Score:2)
. . . 50,000+ delegates? That's just too many to get any real work done. Even G20 has too many wonks. And everyone wants to step up to the podium to get heard; even if they have nothing worth contributing anyway. And that in Rio. What you end up with is a wet & wild, boozy spring break mayhem.
Instead, get a small group (less than 10) of the most important developed and non-developed countries together to agree to a draft first. Hold it in Minsk, in the middle of winter, to keep all the hang arou
We have to start treating this as organized crime! (Score:5, Interesting)
The content Mafia has invented a model, that allows them, to take the works of others (the actual creatives) via a adhesion contract, and make money on every worthless copy, without moving a single finger. It's fraud. Plain and simple.
And for those who don't fall for the bullshit, they have set up a racketeering scheme, where they scaremonger people into not going to court and paying money, because they know exactly that in court, they wouldn't stand a chance, because they have as much proof as that one "lawyer" in Idiocracy.
Not to forget, that this industry is ridiculously tiny, and only can keep up its ego through massive overinflated self-importance. (Comparison: The whole global music industry has the same revenue, as a single bankrupt German construction company [Holzwinkel]. The whole German music industry has one quarter of the revenue of the municipal transportation services of a 1 million people city. That's *nothing*!)
Yet they want to destroy our entire society to keep up their insane delusions. Even though their fantasies aren't even physically possible, unless you think putting DRM (you know: that thing that by definition can’t work) in every single brain and device is somehow realistically doable and would work too.
Come on guys! We have to push against a bunch of madmen with extreme (often drug-inflated) egos! We can't just push normally. We have to push *harder*!
it is a valid argument, to note, that the reason Germany got the Nazis was not the few crazies. It was the whole nation not doing much against it, and falling for the propaganda!
(Hell, I've seen loads of people even here already use their bullshit propaganda terms like "intellectual property", or even *defend* those criminals! That's *completely* and *utterly* unacceptable!)
uh, so... the business model was steal and cheat? (Score:5, Funny)
the expected business model of the have-nots is to steal and cheat their way into international economic solidity?
that's not fair! -- you're copying Wall Street bankers! quit it!
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be that hard on them. All they want is everything anybody else made for free.
Giving away the rope that hangs you (Score:2)
Don't think for a moment that technology given to the Third World will only be used to clean the air. It will be used to make factories more efficient and will then be packaged up and sold back to the West, undercutting the people who developed it.
valuable IPR (Score:2)
People ofter preface the IP (Intellectual Property) acronym with the word "valuable", like they are on some propaganda mission.
Is all IP valuable, or only some of it, or is it invaluable (and is it really property) ?
In any case, this guy goes to the next level, hes not saying the IP is valuable, he is saying its the RIGHTS that are valuable.
Hes not concerned about reality, just its effect.
Re: (Score:2)
"I just wish they would make an exception for pharmaceuticals, because getting the fruits of someone else's labors for nothing is a moral issue."
There, fixed that for you.
Meanwhile, here in Reality, pharmaceutical companies are doing just that, and jackasses are jumping blindly off the cliff to defend them...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I just wish they would make an exception for pharmaceuticals, because withholding the fruits of someone else's humanitarian efforts is a moral issue."
There, fixed that for you.
Before I went to college I had an interest in medicine and biomedical engineering because I wanted to earn a modest living helping people with medical needs. I have special needs children of my own, so going overseas to volunteer for an aid organization wasn't an option for me. I came to realize that the system was rigged. No amount of labor on my part to develop treatments or artificial limbs was going to help the most needy as long as the companies I worked for were most inter
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer the Telvanni/Shadowruner moral code. If you're good enough to steal it, you've earned it.
Which is the current moral code in those 3rd-world countries, and (if you understand economics) precisely the reason why they are poor.
Without strong property rights, poverty is the inevitable result.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
We have strong property rights and poverty in the first world.
Property rights are nice, but they are no magical solution. When you can't build a middle class, because you face sanctions for competing that is the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)