Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Government United States

Inventor Has Waited 43 Years For Patent Approval 258

Posted by samzenpus
from the just-a-bit-longer dept.
An anonymous reader writes "If you think the average wait of 28.3 months for a patent to be approved is ridiculous, don't complain to Gilbert P. Hyatt. The 76-year-old inventor has been waiting over forty years for a ruling on whether his electronic signal to control machinery should be granted a patent. 'It's totally unconscionable,' said Brad Wright, a patent lawyer with Banner & Witcoff in Washington who specializes in computer-related applications and isn't involved in Hyatt's case. 'The patent office doesn't want to be embarrassed that they might issue a broad patent that would have a sweeping impact on the technology sector. Rather than be embarrassed, they're just bottling it up.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inventor Has Waited 43 Years For Patent Approval

Comments Filter:
  • by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @06:32PM (#46383977) Journal

    Haven't carried out a detail search on the said patent, but if TFA's description is to be believable

    electronic signal to control machinery

    ...that gonna be one heck of a very broad and very VERY valuable patent !!

    'The patent office doesn't want to be embarrassed that they might issue a broad patent that would have a sweeping impact on the technology sector. Rather than be embarrassed, they're just bottling it up.'

    Oh sure! With the issuance of that patent now many manufacturers / users of devices that use that technology may start receiving lawyer's letter demanding $$$, if that patent ended up being sold to some patent trolls.

    • by eclectro (227083) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @06:45PM (#46384061)

      Haven't carried out a detail search on the said patent,

      You won't be able to, either. The article states that due to age of the patent, the application is confidential.

      Without seeing the application, it's difficult to tell what its validity is. But when this patent application was filed in 1971, electronic control of machinery was already quite widespread. So, it would have to be quite specific about its implementation. Then there is the question of making companies pay for something they knew nothing about.

      In the end, congress would have the power to invalidate this patent outright, if they wanted to.

      • by icebike (68054) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @07:12PM (#46384181)

        Hyatt refers to it as his square wave machine control patent.
        But that's about all that is known.

        I'd speculate It would flow out of his digital processors patents, and probably has something to do with controlling motors with a microprocessor via pulse width modulation [wikipedia.org] or some such other common technique.

        His problem is that the world plus dog independently discovered a variety of means to do the same thing in the interval since his first filing, if for no other reason than once you have a microprocessor (which he also invented), it is the obvious and natural way to control external devices.

        Still, patents should be granted or denied. No reasonable excuse to sit on this forever. No way should the PTO get a "pocket veto" authority.

    • This is Slashdot. Nothing written here about patents is believable.

    • Just because that's the topic the patent is related to doesn't mean he's trying to patent the entire topic.

    • "if TFA's description is to be believable"
      Why should this be a matter of speculation? You can look at the claims yourself.

      Of course we can be fairly sure that what has happened is that somebody read only the abstract of the patent application and took the most extreme interpretation they could think of on the spot, because reading the actual claims looks like work.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        But no one outside the patent office has seen the application, or the abstract, or anything.

        It's all secret, because it's so old. As explained in TFA.

      • by Baloroth (2370816) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @09:34PM (#46384867)

        "if TFA's description is to be believable" Why should this be a matter of speculation? You can look at the claims yourself.

        Unfortunately, we can't. From TFA:

        Because the filings are so old, they fall under a law that keeps them confidential, said Patrick Ross, a PTO spokesman. That means the office can't discuss them or even say how many pending patent applications predate a 1995 change in the law, Ross said.

  • by DarkOx (621550)

    Seems like prior art should be easy to find, people have had relays on things longer than 43 years, or is this patent going to try and distinguish between electronic and electromechanical controls?

    • by ThatAblaze (1723456) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @07:16PM (#46384203)

      Well, it can be valid if it covers a set of methods relating to how to use relays.

      This guy seems to only want the patent so he can sell it to patent trolls. It seems that the patent office doesn't want to deny the patent because they know that as soon as they do he'll sue (again). I wouldn't call this guy an inverter, I would call him another part of the patent troll machine.

      • his guy seems to only want the patent so he can sell it to patent trolls

        To be fair, at 74, I don't think he really has any other option to try to monetize it. He doesn't have that long to enjoy the trophy wife the millions will get him.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:56PM (#46385423)

        I wouldn't call this guy an inverter,

        Yeah, you're right. I think they prefer to be called "single-input NAND gates" these days. Political correctness gone mad, I tell ya...

    • by artor3 (1344997)

      You don't know what his patent claims, aside from the oversimplification in the summary.

      • You don't know what his patent claims, aside from the oversimplification in the summary.

        And what's your point.. or were you just stating the obvious?

        Since it appears that no one knows specifically what the patent contains it's really no more than a nebulous threat to claim ownership over something that someone else did. It may or may not manifest in the future, and if it does then it was impossible for anyone in the present to know whether something they are building today infringes on it. No matter what this patent contains if it was ever granted it would be a complete abuse of the patent sys

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Charliemopps (1157495)

      This guy invented the microprocessor, holds over 70 patents, is a self made millionaire (maybe billionaire) and has successfully sued the state of California for nearly $400 million because they tried to extort taxes he didn't owe out of him. So far, everything he's done relating to tech has been righteous imo, let's cut him some slack.

      http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/... [forbes.com]

      • by Pseudonym (62607)

        Yeah, we're not talking about Lemelson here.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02, 2014 @07:58PM (#46384383)
        The guy submits wildy broad patents and wants to use them to sell to patent trolls. Fuck cutting him some slack, just reject the damn patents already.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        No, he didn't.

      • by Arker (91948) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @08:41PM (#46384579) Homepage
        He did not invent the microprocessor.

        He filed a fanciful patent application describing the possibility, waited until someone else figured out how to make it reality, then sued them.

        He might be the patent troll patient zero.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 03, 2014 @01:28AM (#46385731)

          This asshole is running a standard 'Submarine Patent' play. Fiddle with the application until everything is using the tech and it's firmly embedded in daily use (lasers and UPC codes are other classic submarine patents) then sue everyone when the patent is finally granted.

          Fuck this guy.

      • by Trogre (513942)

        Really? Is Gilbert P. Hyatt just a pseudonym used by Jack Kilby?

      • by Raenex (947668) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @09:37PM (#46384889)

        This guy invented the microprocessor

        Under dispute. Actually, he eventually lost his patent, but not until after he managed to extract millions in licensing fees from it. An anti-Hyatt [intel4004.com] page.

        successfully sued the state of California for nearly $400 million because they tried to extort taxes he didn't owe out of him

        Whether he owes them or not is still not settled. He won money from California on the basis of a Nevada jury for California's auditory process. The bottom line is that he moved to Las Vegas to avoid California taxes from his license windfall.

        So far, everything he's done relating to tech has been righteous imo, let's cut him some slack.

        From the article: "While some of Hyatt's patents predate or are contemporary with those granted to executives at Intel and Texas Instruments Inc., those companies made products that changed the world, Bassett said.

        "I respect Gilbert Hyatt's work -- the process of engineering is difficult," Bassett said in a telephone interview. "But innovations are more than ideas. The broader context matters. If Gilbert Hyatt had never existed, I believe the microprocessor would have developed in the same way that it did.""

      • by litehacksaur111 (2895607) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @10:52PM (#46385201)
        Horse shit. The microprocessor was the work of people like Bill Shockley, Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore, Jay Last, etc. This guy patented some overly broad concept and tried to use those rights to patent troll.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        From http://www.intel4004.com/hyatt.htm The Gilbert Hyatt Patent
        A patent on the microcontroller, predating the only two Intel patents related to the MCS-4, was granted to Gilbert Hyatt in 1990. This patent described the architecture and logic design of a microcontroller, claiming that it could be integrated into a single chip. This patent was later invalidated in a patent interference case brought forth by Texas Instruments, on account that the device it described was never implemented and was not implemen

      • by tragedy (27079)

        This guy invented the microprocessor...

        The patent he had on a "microcontroller" was invalidated. Based on what you're saying, it sounds like he's very good in the courtroom, however.

      • by meustrus (1588597) <meustrus.gmail@com> on Monday March 03, 2014 @12:08PM (#46387873)

        FYI, anybody who allegedly owes the state of California over $50 million in taxes earned way more than that. The maximum income tax rate in California in 1990 was 9.3% for individuals (although I'm not sure if individual income tax is the rate that would apply). We're looking at about $500 million in earnings for which he was allegedly dodging a $50 million tax. Not to mention that those $500 million he got was from a patent granted in 1990 for microprocessors, long after they were invented by someone else and in common use. Don't feel too sorry for him.

        Damnit people, why doesn't anybody realize that the government is the people? A nearly $400 million dollar judgement paid out from the state of California is $400 million dollars in tax hikes (or college tuition hikes, or delayed infrastructure maintenance, or funding cuts for public schools, police departments, state parks, etc.) for everyone else that doesn't have $500 million in ill-gotten patent license deals to pay for lawyers.

    • by Hadlock (143607)

      The patent for the Teletype machine was issued in 1907, any variation thereof, up to and including paper punch cards would probably invalidate the patent.

  • Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tarogue (84626) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @06:37PM (#46384013)

    But they'll let Amazon patent "one-click" shopping?

    • by shentino (1139071)

      Don't you know that corporations and the "elite" have more privileges and rights than lowly peons like this inventor?

    • Believe it or not, there are some people out there who believe that the Amazon one-click patent is a good patent. Sarten-X [slashdot.org] is one user who will defend Amazon's patent as being 'non-obvious' (as far as I can tell, he mainly claims that it's non-obvious because there was non exact prior art. Which isn't the same as being non-obvious, but that's how he feels).
      • Re:Seriously (Score:4, Insightful)

        by AK Marc (707885) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @09:09PM (#46384721)
        The patent was on the business practice previously called "put it on my tab".

        But all that is more proof that what should be banned is the ability to patent a process or business plan. Patent objects, or the plans to build them. Not software, not math, not genes, unless you invent a machine that does something with them. If you can tell someone the result (one click) and the rest of the process is easily guessable, it's obvious. Much like "sweat of the brow" doesn't determine copyrighability, just thinking up something new isn't sufficient for a patent.

        Now all we need to do is convince the patent office of this simple truth.
        • Apparently I had been going around with an inaccurate idea of how bar tabs work for 29 years (clearly I don't frequent bars). I was going to call you on that but background research shows that it really is the same thing.

          I'm not entirely convinced the object thing is the right answer, though. I think it's possible to generate a nontrivial non-obvious useful process which is as useful as a nontrivial non-obvious useful mechanism. Certain crypto stuff, for instance, seems like it should be neither more nor

          • Re:Seriously (Score:4, Interesting)

            by AK Marc (707885) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @10:39PM (#46385151)

            Apparently I had been going around with an inaccurate idea of how bar tabs work for 29 years (clearly I don't frequent bars). I was going to call you on that but background research shows that it really is the same thing.

            Before modern bars, you'd go to the local shopkeeper, and place an order for flour, sugar, salt, and you'd walk out the door, usually without paying. It was "one click pay" where the shopkeeper would collect later based on previously negotiated terms. There's thousands of years of documentation of "one click" transactions. It's not just a modern bar tab, which fails because you one-click each item into the cart, but then settle with a non-preciously agreed payment on your way out. Though some do it more like one-click. But regardless of the details, the idea of a near-authorizationless transaction based on previous agreement is thousands of years old.

            Certain crypto stuff, for instance, seems like it should be neither more nor less patentable than a novel mechanism for making a physical lock, even though it has a mathematical/software basis.

            I agree, but the nuance is lost on most, so we'd be better off with none than having it similar to now, with lots of room for error.

  • He pissed the patent office off and sued them, now his patents get delayed.
    California asked him for taxes on his millions, he sued them for even more.

    • FTR, FTA, he won a $388 million lawsuit against the State of California for harassment and invasion of privacy, which is now being reviewed in the SCOTSO Nevada.

      We could, and often do, argue all night whether the patent system should cease to exist in it's current form.

      For the purposes of this argument, we are forced to stipulate that it presently exists. This is about a government patent office holding a grudge against an inventor for friggin' decades.

      • "SCOTSO", is that some Scottish demonym?

        Quit making up cutesy acronyms that not even a google search reveals.

        • by Ecuador (740021)
          In case you are not joking, he means "Supreme Court Of The State Of". Americans love their acronyms for whatever reason even if it makes communication much harder. This specific example was modeled after the common acronym SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States), so people who know that could understand (screw the rest). In fact, SCOTUS is one of the more "appropriate" acronyms, as it actually means "Darkness" in Greek, which is where the current SCOTUS is taking us...
        • by Hadlock (143607)

          SCOTUS is bog-standard, IANAL but AFAIK you should be able to figure out SCOTSO Nevada. If he had said SCOTSN you might have had a point. IMHO.

      • by shentino (1139071)

        Which is interesting in light of the 11th amendment

      • Doesn't change the fact he owed taxes and wasn't paying them.
        Never said he was a troll, just a dick.
        Perhaps if he was nice to people he'd be a billionaire by now.

  • by folderol (1965326) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @06:48PM (#46384077) Homepage
    ... was not telling him to bugger off 43 yeasrs ago. That was in 1971. As a trainee I was working on aligning servo motor controls in 1967 - it used them thar new-fangled transisitor things {bloody wickless wonders}
  • by don.g (6394) <donNO@SPAMdis.org.nz> on Sunday March 02, 2014 @06:49PM (#46384081) Homepage

    As Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor#Gilbert_Hyatt) says:

        Gilbert Hyatt was awarded a patent claiming an invention pre-dating both TI and Intel, describing a "microcontroller".[9] The patent was later invalidated, but not before substantial royalties were paid out.[10][11]

    And from http://www.intel4004.com/hyatt... [intel4004.com]:

        "This patent was later invalidated in a patent interference case brought forth by Texas Instruments, on account that the device it described was never implemented and was not implementable with the technology available at the time of the invention. "

    I know that 1990 (when that microprocessor patent was granted) is pre-Slashdot, but srsly, what's happening when patent trolls' whinging is front page news here?

  • What value has this man added to a single piece of equipment sold in the last 40 years? What part of these machines relied on his effort or ingenuity? If his patent had never been filed, are we to seriously believe that progress would have been held back by so much as an hour.

    Let drop this passive-aggressive geek myth of the vital "small-guy" inventor and the civilization changing ideas which supposedly emerge from his superior brain. It is far, far easier, and far, far better for society as a whole to simply regard all patent holders as parasites, and simply stop issuing them. Inventors can start their own companies or get a job like everyone else.

    Reward belongs to those who add value. To those who produce things; produce wealth. it does not belong to the people who "thought" of doing so, or who had some "bright idea" sometimes in the 1970s. It belongs to the three generations of people since who put their -- unpatented -- ideas into action and made them a reality. To the people who competed based on the merits of their results, and not the entitlement they felt their intellects deserved.

    It's time to put patents away. All patents. Our society will make better progress without them. Inventors are not worth the price being paid to parasites.

    • What value has this man added to a single piece of equipment sold in the last 40 years? What part of these machines relied on his effort or ingenuity? If his patent had never been filed, are we to seriously believe that progress would have been held back by so much as an hour.

      From the article:

      While some of Hyatt's patents predate or are contemporary with those granted to executives at Intel and Texas Instruments Inc., those companies made products that changed the world, (Ross) Bassett, (a professor at North Carolina State University) said.

      "I respect Gilbert Hyatt's work — the process of engineering is difficult," Bassett said in a telephone interview. "But innovations are more than ideas. The broader context matters. If Gilbert Hyatt had never existed, I believe the

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        Sounds like this guy did no more than if Gene Roddenberry had patented the cell phone in th 1960s based on the Star Trek communicator. He didn't invent it. He didn't implement it. He may have been the first to put something on paper and get it to the patent office, but that's not sufficient to be an "inventor".
    • by whoever57 (658626)

      What value has this man added to a single piece of equipment sold in the last 40 years? What part of these machines relied on his effort or ingenuity? If his patent had never been filed, are we to seriously believe that progress would have been held back by so much as an hour.

      This case is a classic example of how the patent system does not benefit innovation or society. The patent that the article focuses on is secret, which means that "his invention" has not benefitted any product. On the other hand, it

    • Brilliant, so let's say the inventor starts his or her own company. MegaCorp sees the idea, likes it, and uses its massive financial and market power to create their own version which is better, faster and shinier. MegaCorp gets a 3% rise in stock prices, the inventor gets nothing.

      The inventor has another brilliant idea, but this time he or she keeps it under their hat and the whole of society suffers as a result

      Seriously, why does this need to be explained. But since it does I feel obliged to also mention

      • Patents further the advantages of large companies more than independent entities by their very nature.

        Regarding trade secrets, patents do nothing to reduce them as getting a patent on anything that could be kept a secret more than 20 years would be very foolish. If you intend to undermine trade secrets, then aim to get trade secret law pulled back.
        • Frivolous patents, patents which haven't been put to use (ie defensive patents), software patents, submarine patents and patent trollery benefit larger corporations, but these are abuses of the patent system. There's nothing wrong with the basic idea, and nothing that can't be fixed if the will to do so ever materialised.

          • by ewibble (1655195)

            Frivolous patents, my well be abuses but they are also a direct result of the patient system. The patents are all about controlling, obtaining a monopoly, the more "Ideas" you control the more you benefit.

            It is in a companies very nature to maximize profit, as such it will always push the patent system to its limits. Using its vast resources to do so, by lawyers, and bribing, ops I meant lobbying politicians, to change the laws.

            I am not completely opposed to a patent system but patents should be very short

            • They're already reasonably short lived - most industries don't move at the breakneck speed of the IT/tech business so they may seem overlengthy here, but everywhere else they're acceptable. And even in IT, the guy that invented the mouse didn't get a cent because mice didn't become widespread till after his patent expired, so there's another side to the story.

              • When you patent something it's your own responsibility to monetize it. Engelbart didn't monetize the mouse patent, but by patenting it he sure claimed credit for it, which is probably more important in the long run. It would certainly be more galling if Apple were allowed to claim they invented it because he hadn't patented it.

        • Patents further the advantages of large companies more than independent entities by their very nature.

          I dunno, I make a pretty good living licensing out my patents. I make more from licensing than I do from my regular "day" job (which I do because I love doing it) - enough to live comfortably. And that includes having monster CE/tech licensees including Microsoft...

      • You assume that patents do anything to prevent MegaCorp from competing. You also assume that it is Joe Inventor filing most of the patents, and not said MegaCorp. In practice, neither of these things are true, and the primary beneficiaries of patent litigation are lawyers.

        Patents are the right to squash competition. Competition in the ideal sense is a very efficient way to allocate resources. If one company is first to market, and a competitor makes a product which is "better, faster, and shinier," what exa

        • You assume that patents do anything to prevent MegaCorp from competing.

          That is in fact exactly what they do.

          You also assume that it is Joe Inventor filing most of the patents, and not said MegaCorp.

          No, that would be you putting words in my mouth.

          Since you started off with a patently (ho!) false assertion and a strawman, the rest of your argument - which also happens to be based on these two items - can safely be discarded.

          • by thaylin (555395)
            No, they dont, unless the patent is overly broad. If it is narrow, as it should be, MegaCorp could come up with a work around and continue to compete.
            • There are posters in this very thread who say they make a good living from Megacorps who've licensed their patents. Is there some reason they haven't been "crushed"?

          • One of my arguments was Jefferson's, so you are bizarrely dishonest in claiming that it was based on any fallacy of mine. You are also incorrect in identifying said fallacies.

            If patents prevent competition, as you assert, then why is it that Apple is not the first smartphone inventor, nor Microsoft the first OS inventor, nor Dell the PC inventor? I would be harder pressed to find markets that were dominated by a single entity by virtue of patents; perhaps you can suggest some. In the strict sense though I a

      • by ewibble (1655195)

        because that's not how it works in real life.

        If Megacorp wants to crush you, it will, It will put into play its warchest of patents, with its army of lawyers, you will go bankrupt paying legal fees long before you make any money.

        Your best hope is remain unnoticed until you are successful enough to compete.

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        Why did they keep it under their hat the second time? Because they wanted to spite the public for Mega corp's actions? The way patents are abused now, we'd be better off with none, than with what we have now.
  • by RandomUsername99 (574692) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @07:02PM (#46384147)

    was waiting in line at the damn post office to mail the application in.

  • The Chicago Tribune writes an article involving a patent application but does not include the number of the patent application.

    • by CaptBubba (696284)

      It wouldn't do you any good anyway. It is under the old laws where everything is confidential until/unless a patent actually issues on the application.

      The new laws were actually put in place because of this guy's actions and the 1990 microprocessor patent (and Lemelson's claims covering all of machine vision of course).

  • he might a writer told them his story and the writer agreed to write about it, hoping to make some quick cash. This guy is obviously an ass, based on the story, and since his claims are unverifiable probably not very honest either.

  • by wiredlogic (135348) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @08:17PM (#46384459)

    From browsing the list of his patents [google.com] it looks like most of them are written with overly generalized broad claims which don't actually describe anything that wasn't obvious at the time. This gem [google.com] filed in 1972 describes a "Machine control system operating from remote commands". Whoopty do. Remotely operable computers existed before the filing date. Why the USPTO awarded him so many patents on obvious things is beyond comprehension.

  • Why should we all accept lower growth so that this man, who is already extremely wealthy, can be made even wealthier? What sort of justice is that?
    • by Rockoon (1252108)
      Are you suggesting that what the USPTO is doing would be unacceptable if he was poor, but it acceptable because he is rich?
      • Let's not pretend that the USPTO is doing anything acceptable or would be doing anything acceptable in any hypothetical universe.

    • Actually, delaying the approval or denial of his patent is the injustice here. Justice should relate to the proper execution of the law, not about whether or not someone thinks it's good or bad for society. We are a nation of laws, and that is the foundation of justice - a consistent set of rules by which we live.
  • by arglebargle_xiv (2212710) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @09:06PM (#46384697)
    This sounds a lot like a submarine patent [wikipedia.org]. The idea is that you file a patent on some generic idea, not necessarily realisable, and then continue it for years, sometimes decades, until the state of the art has advanced to the point where it can be realised. At that point your submarine patent emerges and you've now patented a field that others have spent years developing for you. The notorious Jerome Lemelson [wikipedia.org] made a billion-dollar business out of this.
  • by Patent Lover (779809) on Monday March 03, 2014 @12:13AM (#46385487)
    If this guy's really been at it for 43 years without ever appealing a patent office rejection, he doesn't really want a patent. He's another Lemelson looking for somebody to sue.
  • by craighansen (744648) on Monday March 03, 2014 @12:19AM (#46385503)

    Article seems to be talking about patent application 05/302771, and the status of the case is miles away from the way it's described in the article. This patent has been through several levels of non-final and final rejections, appeals, and court actions. Through the USPTO's public PAIR (Patent Application Information Retrieval) system, you can access hundreds of pages of information and history on the case, including what are now several hundred pending claims. Even if the application itself hasn't been published, the file history is ripe with lots of information. You can see the patent examiners' rejections and there's a 494-page appeal brief filed on behalf of the Applicant, from which you can see many of the pending claims. The patent office rejections appear mainly under section 112 on the basis that the claims aren't adequately supported by the patent disclosure. It's not as if he just applied for the patent and waited 43 years - he's been trying hard not to take NO for the answer.

    In addition, there appear to be about 150 additional patent cases filed as continuations on dates between 1977 and 1995 - some still pending and some abandoned. Most of them aren't accessible under the public PAIR system because of the pre-1995 filing dates. Presumably there's no continuations filed after 1995 because under the post-1995 rules, the application would expire 20 years from the earliest filing date, so they'd expire before granting. If many of these continuations have hundreds of claims like the parent case, there could be tens of thousands of claims that he's trying to get granted.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...