If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TED)   Drew's TED talk is up - How I Beat a Patent Troll   (ted.com) divider line 335
    More: PSA, TED Talks, Drew Curtis  
•       •       •

18742 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2012 at 2:40 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



335 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-17 08:30:24 PM
Way to go, Drew!! What a huge drain on the system.
 
2012-04-17 08:35:54 PM
Good talk, but I'm gonna be honest...some of those graphics were appallingly bad.
 
2012-04-17 08:39:21 PM

CrispFlows: I genuinely wish I can understand the TED talks, some of them subtitled and captioned. This one is not. I assume that the video is too fresh for the subtitles to be added yet.

Drew, if you happened to have written this talk before you went to stage, would it be too much to ask if you post the written version on here?.


I'll do my best to transcribe. Using the listen, pause, type method and doing it quickly so please forgive typos and stuff:

Last January my company fark.com was sued along with Yahoo, MSN, reddit, AOL, Techchrunch and others by a company called Gooseberry Natural Resources. Gooseberry owned the patent for the creation and distribution of news releases via email. (audience chuckles) Now it may seem strange that such a thing can be patented but it does happen all the time. Take something already being done and patent it for an emerging technology. Like phonecalls on the internet, or video listings for TV shows, or radio but for cell phones. And so on.

The problem with these patents is that the mechanisms are obscure and the patent system is dysfunctional. As a result most of these lawsuits end in a settlement. And because these settlements are under a non-disclosure agreement, no one knows what the terms were. And as a result the patent troll can claim that they won the case.

In the case of Gooseberry Natural Resources, this patent on the emailing news releases had sort of a fatal flaw as it pertained to myself. And that was is that in the mainstream media world there is only one definition for news release, and it turns out that is Press Release as in PR. Now my company fark deals with news, ostensibly, and as a result we were not in violation of this patent. So case closed, right? Wrong. One of the major problems with patent laws is that in the case .. when you are sued by a patent troll the burden of proof that you did not infringe on the patent is actually on the defendant. Which means you have to prove that you did not infringe on the patent that they are suing you on. And this can take quite a while.

You need to know that the average patent troll defense costs $2 million and takes 18 months, when you win. That is your best case outcome when you get sued by a patent troll. Now I had hoped to team up with some of these larger companies in order to defend against this lawsuit, but one by one they settled out of the case. Even though, and this is important, none of these companies infringed on this patent. Not a one of them. And they started settling out. The reason they settled out is because it is cheaper to settle than to fight the lawsuit, clearly. $2 million cheaper in some cases. And much worse if you actually lose. It also constitutes a massive distraction for management of a company. Especially a small, eight-man shop like my company.

Six months into the lawsuit we finally reached the discovery phase. And in discovery phase we asked the patent troll to please provide screenshots of fark where the infringement of their patent was actually occuring. Now perhaps its because no such screenshots actually existed but suddenly Gooseberry wanted to settle. (mimes putting the phone to his ear) their attorney "Uuuh, yes, my company is having a reorganisation on our end" nevermind the fact that the address lead to a strip mall somewhere in northern LA with no employees (continue mime) "And we'd like to go ahead and close this out. So would you mind giving us your best and final offer?" And my response, "How about NOTHING?" (audience chuckles, brief applause)

We didn't have high hopes for that outcome, but they settled! No counter offer. Now as mentioned before, one of the reasons I can talk to you about this is because there is no non-disclosure agreement on this case. Now, how did that happen? Well durring the settlement process when we got our copy, I struck it. My attorney said, Na.. no chance of that working. It came back signed. Now why? You can call them. They're not under NDA either.

Now what did I learn from this case? Well, three things. First of all, if you can, don't fight the patent, fight the infringement. Patents are very difficult to overturn and infringement is a lot easier to disprove. Secondly, make it clear from the beginning that either you have no money at all, or that you would rather spend the money with your attorney fighting the troll than actually giving them the money. Now the reason this works is because patent trolls are paid a percentage of what they are able to recover in settlement. IF it becomes clear to them that they can not recover any money, they become less interested in perusing the case. Finally, make sure that you tell them that you will make this process as annoying and as painful and as difficult as possible for them. Now this is a tactic that patent trolls are supposed to use on people to get their way. It turns out that because they are paid on contingency it works really really well in reverse. Don't forget that.

So what does all this mean? Well, to kind of sum up, it boils down to one thing. Don't negotiate with terrorists. Patent trolls have done more damage to the United States economy than any domestic or foreign terrorist organization in history every year. And what do they do with that money? They plough it right back into filing more troll lawsuits.

Now this is the point in the talk where I'm supposed to come up with some kind of solution for the patent system, and the problem with that is that there are two very large industry groups that have different outcomes in mind for the patent system. The healthcare industry would like stronger protections for inventors. The high tech industry would like stronger protections for producers. And these goals are not exactly diametrically opposed, but they are at odds. And as a result patent trolls can kind of live in the space in between. So unfortunately I am not smart enough to have a solution for the patent troll problem.

However, I did have this idea. And it was kinda good. And I thought I should patent this. (audience laughs) Behold! Patent infringement via mobile device. Defined as a computer that is not stationary. My solution, award me this patent and I will troll them out of existence. Thank you
 
2012-04-17 08:41:03 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Fight a patent troll for $2 million

or

Hire a couple of veterans who need money to hunt down and kill the trolls for $500K each.

Option #2 would have been more effective. Dead trolls troll no more.


In a baggie? (new window)
 
2012-04-17 09:24:46 PM
tl;dr
 
2012-04-17 09:33:14 PM
I don't understand why Drew hates job creators
He should have thought about all of the freepers he's putting out of business by disallowing these creative geniuses from distributing news by email, now all those FWD FWD FWD'EDED's will have to stop

/SUCIULISM
//OK kind of weak
///Sleepy
 
2012-04-17 09:36:32 PM
Shaman to shaman.
 
2012-04-17 10:02:20 PM
Farking right on man.

In reality I think many of the patent trolls are working for organized crime and terror organizations. Notice how their networks are very much the same, you can never find the actual owners....I think it would be best to require a face to face, on camera AT A FEDERAL BUILDING. Can anyone guess why a federal building?? Poor attorney that actually shows up; his life is ruined.
 
2012-04-17 10:10:37 PM

Pincy: PYROY: For some reason, I always expected Drew to have a lisp and a neck scratching habit.

I was expecting the banjo duel from Deliverance to be playing in the background.


I was betting on a neckbeard and a cold sore.
 
2012-04-17 10:12:19 PM
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1& u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=15&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,370 ,535&OS=6,370,535&RS=6,370,535

From what I can tell, it doesn't apply to a news aggregator at ALL (The patent is about the delivery of encrypted data followed by the delivery of encrypted keys to guarantee possible regulatory/policy requirements for "simultaneous delivery."), and to the extent it did, it wouldn't be anything more than an invalid "common sense" patent.

So what says you, Theaetus?
 
2012-04-17 10:20:24 PM
I must concede, the actual idea described in the patent is pretty novel.

Too bad it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with fark!
 
2012-04-17 10:53:31 PM

Theaetetus: the prior art "a car" and "electricity" both exist, so the combination is by definition obvious.


Ridiculous. Every patent uses a combination of obvious prior art. "An evacuated glass bulb" is prior art. "A string" is prior art. "Lampblack" is prior art. Put them together, you have a light bulb, which is patentable.
 
2012-04-17 10:58:40 PM
I guess getting TED talks selected for me via Stumble's voting system may have set my bar a little high. But it was okay. Getting feedback from a first hand observer always yields details left out by any subjective scrutiny of the subject at hand.
 
2012-04-17 11:05:21 PM

Theaetetus: DrySocket: Gooseberry is a shell company for Intellectual Ventures, Nathan Myrvholds little "innovation" company.

Got a citation for that? Haven't heard that IV is using shells, but I'd be interested to know more.


I got halfway through the thread before caving to post this: When Patents Attack! (new window)

Highly educational, and one of the many reasons I absolutely love TAL. This whole episode is awesome.
/sorry if someone else posted it.
 
2012-04-17 11:16:35 PM

whippersnapper: I got halfway through the thread before caving to post this: When Patents Attack! (new window)


I just listened to that a couple of weeks ago. A rare example of great reporting in this day and age, yet enormously depressing.

The idea that people make billions by buying up tens of thousands of patents on the cheap from bankrupt companies, then just sue anyone who tries to do anything even tangentially related to any of them is utterly maddening. Patents are more and more becoming something that hinders innovation instead of something that fosters it, and nobody has a solution to the problem.
 
2012-04-17 11:26:39 PM
$crew this lawsuit, when are you going to finish coding cybers like you promised drew! It's been like 10+years!
 
2012-04-17 11:31:01 PM
Drew, you know in your heart I submitted this with a better headline. I feel there has been a great infringement in the force.
 
2012-04-17 11:32:16 PM

Man On Pink Corner: Theaetetus: the prior art "a car" and "electricity" both exist, so the combination is by definition obvious.

Ridiculous. Every patent uses a combination of obvious prior art. "An evacuated glass bulb" is prior art. "A string" is prior art. "Lampblack" is prior art. Put them together, you have a light bulb, which is patentable.


Lightbulbs have been around for a long time. I don't think they'd be patentable now, and certainly not with nothing more than the combination you name.
 
2012-04-17 11:37:38 PM

whippersnapper: Theaetetus: DrySocket: Gooseberry is a shell company for Intellectual Ventures, Nathan Myrvholds little "innovation" company.

Got a citation for that? Haven't heard that IV is using shells, but I'd be interested to know more.

I got halfway through the thread before caving to post this: When Patents Attack! (new window)

Highly educational, and one of the many reasons I absolutely love TAL. This whole episode is awesome.
/sorry if someone else posted it.


Unfortunately, that episode has a lot of the same sort of problems. It's pretty typical for NPR, actually: no real research, no attempt to verify what someone tells them. And I should know - I worked there for 8 years.
Specifically, at one point, they're whining about how outrageous it is that 3 patents have the same exact title! OMG, they're patenting the same thing?! Isn't the first one prior art for the other two?! OMG, how stupid is the USPTO?!!
... but then, 30 seconds of research tells you that two of those are continuations of the first one, they all have the same inventor and same effective filing date, and no, by definition, they're not "prior" art.

The episode is full of that. It's the sort of thing that, if it weren't about software patents, geeks would be shredding it for its inaccuracies.
 
2012-04-17 11:45:42 PM
Specifically, it's like the usual media reports after a shooting where they call everything either a Glock or an assault rifle, and Farkers generally show up to rip them a new one.
 
2012-04-17 11:50:30 PM

SupersonicII: So what says you, Theaetus?


Last I checked, Fark didn't use https or deliver encrypted data to us Farkers. Nor do I think we send confirmation receipts. And even if you were to somehow read those as HTTPS and TCP ACKs, then I don't see delivery of keys after delivering the Fark pages. Etc.
This is just my cursory, entertainment-only review, but as I think I said in the original thread, I don't see how this applies to Fark.
 
2012-04-18 12:11:43 AM
Nice job going all Jack Bauer and shiat, Drew.
 
2012-04-18 12:20:14 AM
Just plain awesome
 
2012-04-18 12:23:13 AM

fragMasterFlash: Nice job going all Jack Bauer and shiat, Drew.


Now that you mention it...

images.pcworld.com

*****

i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-18 12:23:21 AM

Theaetetus: whippersnapper: Theaetetus: DrySocket: Gooseberry is a shell company for Intellectual Ventures, Nathan Myrvholds little "innovation" company.

Got a citation for that? Haven't heard that IV is using shells, but I'd be interested to know more.

I got halfway through the thread before caving to post this: When Patents Attack! (new window)

Highly educational, and one of the many reasons I absolutely love TAL. This whole episode is awesome.
/sorry if someone else posted it.

Unfortunately, that episode has a lot of the same sort of problems. It's pretty typical for NPR, actually: no real research, no attempt to verify what someone tells them. And I should know - I worked there for 8 years.
Specifically, at one point, they're whining about how outrageous it is that 3 patents have the same exact title! OMG, they're patenting the same thing?! Isn't the first one prior art for the other two?! OMG, how stupid is the USPTO?!!
... but then, 30 seconds of research tells you that two of those are continuations of the first one, they all have the same inventor and same effective filing date, and no, by definition, they're not "prior" art.

The episode is full of that. It's the sort of thing that, if it weren't about software patents, geeks would be shredding it for its inaccuracies.


OK, but you asked about IV using shell companies, which is clearly happening (as that episode demonstrates).
 
2012-04-18 12:29:31 AM

Yuri Futanari: towatchoverme: I just patented fingers.

No more posts in this thread.

i type wwith m,y p[eenis


Ah, small talk, I see.
 
2012-04-18 12:31:34 AM
Waiting for Patent 7,654,567: A Method for Clandestine Entry into Third-Party Voicemail and Email Accounts (Inventors: Rebekah Brooks, Rupert Murdoch)
 
2012-04-18 12:32:36 AM

Enormous-Schwanstucker: Henceforth and heretofore forthwith I announce my intention to patent the patent pending process of patented patents only as it pertains to the patented process of patenting patents.

Patent...


now my head hurts
 
2012-04-18 12:49:38 AM
It's funny. I was at a conference not long ago and went along with some mechanics/machine industry big shots (which I am not) to dinner. The subject of patents came up. The universal opinion was that they are pure shiat (one guy's words, pretty much everyone nodded or laughed and agreed), for university engineering profs or low-level industry dullards to climb the ranks. Any profitable inventions they either (1) keep a trade secret as long as possible, or if easily discovered or reverse engineered, you just (2) broadly publish it but without important details, and rely on your better market position or in-house talent to win.

Patents are a sad joke, and not just in software. The only reason I file them is to play the funding game (SBIR), and in the remote hope that some idiotic company will pay a lot for them someday. But more and more I think it's really a diseased game that I should opt my company out of entirely.

But make up your own minds, people. Go to Google patents (it's easier and better than the USPTO site), and search on a subject of interest, put in a date range, make it awarded patents only (no mere applications) and look through them and see what you think. Yeah, there are the really silly/stupid patents but look at the ones in field you know and are interested in. For recent awards, is it nonobvious to you? If there are multiple similar-sounding patents, are they significantly different?
 
2012-04-18 12:54:05 AM

Bacontastesgood: impaler: Here's another ridiculous patent.

You're wasting your time, I've tried this before. He's an apologist for a ludicrously broken system. Classic example of slothful induction (post pic of Iraqi minister saying everything's fine here).

People who actually invent things for a living know how bad it is. Drew is just lucky that this one was so obviously off the mark. Companies have foundered because of "infringements", as hinted at by his terrorist comparison statistic.


Pointing out a handful of what the public perceives as bad patents as evidence of a broken system isn't really persuasive. We've got a 96% final disposition compliance rate over the past fiscal year. So 4% of the entire roughly 1 million final dispositions last year were in error. The final disposition compliance rate has actually increased over the past few years.

Which is funny, cause assuming half of that 4% are allowances, that's 20k patents issued per year that shouldn't be. And yet there's only a handful of troll lawsuits every year.

The amount of funding and increase in examining time required to completely eliminate that 4% final disposition error rate would be ridiculous.
 
2012-04-18 12:58:30 AM
Overall the talk was wracked with pacing and delivery problems. The speaker would definitely benefit from acting classes to bolster his dramatic tone, and he displays a very limited range. His vocal control is only adequate, and stage presence is lacking. He appears to be doomed to a career of stand-in work for his local community theatre, at best; at worst, performing for children like a sad, wizened monkey.
 
2012-04-18 01:12:01 AM
I was disappointed the the phrase, "Jack shiat and go fark yourself" didn't actually appear in the talk.
 
2012-04-18 01:22:58 AM

nickerj1: We've got a 96% final disposition compliance rate over the past fiscal year.


Are you serious? That's the angle you're going with? It's an internal, random sample audit mechanism. That's like saying 96% of police didn't get speeding tickets last year. Not too impressive.

Was the guy who told congress 30% of patents shouldn't be issued lying? Are the people I referred to, industry leaders, just really stupid, or do they not like spending $25k per patent? Were they lying? University guys are way tighter with the pennies than industry and yet they love filing patents.

Why do so many ACTUAL inventors hate the USPTO? Any theories on that? There must be a reason.

And yet there's only a handful of troll lawsuits every year.

Amounting to $80B per year lost wealth to the defendants in those suits (according to Drew's slide 5:34 in talk). $100M in licensing (not counting legal costs) for the JPEG troll alone. Come on.

Pointing out a handful of what the public perceives as bad patents as evidence of a broken system isn't really persuasive.

As I said above, people should look for themselves in subject areas they know. Recent stuff so it's relevant, everything old tends to look obvious. Make up your own minds, don't listen to us hacks with axes to grind and careers on the line.
 
2012-04-18 01:23:43 AM

Toriko: CrispFlows: I genuinely wish I can understand the TED talks, some of them subtitled and captioned. This one is not. I assume that the video is too fresh for the subtitles to be added yet.

Drew, if you happened to have written this talk before you went to stage, would it be too much to ask if you post the written version on here?.

I'll do my best to transcribe. Using the listen, pause, type method and doing it quickly so please forgive typos and stuff:

Snip.


Crispflows, that is one of the nicest things I have seen done on here. You deserve a hand for that. +1 interweb for you. I will put you on my favorites list.

Drew, I wish you would have used One Click Purchases as an example of bad patents.
 
2012-04-18 01:25:16 AM
I meant that for Toriko.
 
2012-04-18 09:16:03 AM

Bucky Katt: Enormous-Schwanstucker: Henceforth and heretofore forthwith I announce my intention to patent the patent pending process of patented patents only as it pertains to the patented process of patenting patents.

Patent...

now my head hurts


If it's any consolation I am ok with not saying or writing that...word....ever again. Apologies for hurting your melon.
 
2012-04-18 09:34:29 AM
I got dibs on patents,

I just patented dibs.
 
2012-04-18 09:50:48 AM

Toriko: transcript


Thank you, thank you so very much. I know how much patience and time this requires and it is greatly, greatly appreciated.
 
2012-04-18 09:53:06 AM

Do the needful: I meant that for Toriko.


HA! I know you meant that for Toriko,

/ Although, honestly, If somehow my body decides to defy the known concepts of medicine and spontaneously got me hearing, I'd spend my days transcribing internet videos.
 
2012-04-18 09:54:11 AM
That's exactly how you deal with debt collectors, too.
 
2012-04-18 10:03:46 AM

Christian Bale: Overall the talk was wracked with pacing and delivery problems. The speaker would definitely benefit from acting classes to bolster his dramatic tone, and he displays a very limited range. His vocal control is only adequate, and stage presence is lacking. He appears to be doomed to a career of stand-in work for his local community theatre, at best; at worst, performing for children like a sad, wizened monkey.


I was annoyed by your post then I read your handle.

/ Great job! :D It got a laugh from me.
 
2012-04-18 10:10:35 AM

mrmyxolodian: Nice talk Drew!

Isn't this a good time to finally get a TED tag?


Agreed on both accounts!



I find the lack of TED tag....disturbing for some reason...
 
2012-04-18 11:21:18 AM

MythDragon: Drew: I respectfully disagree...

[moviesmedia.ign.com image 460x280]
...I prefer the stick you only have to beat a patent troll with once


Awesome.
 
2012-04-18 11:45:03 AM

CrispFlows: Do the needful: I meant that for Toriko.

HA! I know you meant that for Toriko,

/ Although, honestly, If somehow my body decides to defy the known concepts of medicine and spontaneously got me hearing, I'd spend my days transcribing internet videos.


I had thought about holding my phone up near the speaker and offering to text it to you. It's scary that something that painfully obvious is overlooked. Sorry to hear about find out about your hearing loss. YouTube should put that software they have that searches out songs you have put in your video to at least try and voice to text subtitles for the hearing impaired. Do you have software that will hook into your soundcard stream? Then it could be used on any site.
 
2012-04-18 12:20:56 PM

Bacontastesgood: nickerj1: We've got a 96% final disposition compliance rate over the past fiscal year.

Are you serious? That's the angle you're going with? It's an internal, random sample audit mechanism. That's like saying 96% of police didn't get speeding tickets last year. Not too impressive.

Was the guy who told congress 30% of patents shouldn't be issued lying? Are the people I referred to, industry leaders, just really stupid, or do they not like spending $25k per patent? Were they lying? University guys are way tighter with the pennies than industry and yet they love filing patents.

Why do so many ACTUAL inventors hate the USPTO? Any theories on that? There must be a reason.

And yet there's only a handful of troll lawsuits every year.

Amounting to $80B per year lost wealth to the defendants in those suits (according to Drew's slide 5:34 in talk). $100M in licensing (not counting legal costs) for the JPEG troll alone. Come on.

Pointing out a handful of what the public perceives as bad patents as evidence of a broken system isn't really persuasive.

As I said above, people should look for themselves in subject areas they know. Recent stuff so it's relevant, everything old tends to look obvious. Make up your own minds, don't listen to us hacks with axes to grind and careers on the line.


You mean the study that pulls numbers out of their ass? And is trying to sell a book about "patent failure"? Also the study considers any non-practicing entities as a "patent troll", which is well... whatever.

AIA is a good step forward. No more swearing behind a reference when I don't give the authors of the reference a chance to swear behind the swear behind. PGPubs have been a huge help. I don't take anything filed pre 2000 seriously just because there's relatively little searchable prior art, or the search wasn't even done electronically.

The problem with litigation, IMO, is that it's too hard to prove invalidity, the assumption of validity should be easier to cast in doubt, and the juries don't understand patent law.

Also looking at "the recent stuff" (I'm assuming you mean patents issued this year) isn't "recent". I'm not sure what the average is, but the stuff I'm allowing now has EFDs ranging from 2003-2005.
 
2012-04-18 12:34:25 PM

ds_4815: fragMasterFlash: Nice job going all Jack Bauer and shiat, Drew.

Now that you mention it...



*****


I knew it wasnt just me, but I didnt want to post that in case I was ridiculed.
 
2012-04-18 12:49:27 PM

Bacontastesgood: Why do so many ACTUAL inventors hate the USPTO? Any theories on that? There must be a reason.


I'm an R&D engineer, and my company files for a lot of patents. For us its a defense mechanism, because almost anything of any complexity you make will unintentionally violate some patent. This goes to the ease at which one can get a patent for something that is obvious. Now that lawyer above was incredulous that the VoIP patent was obvious. But the patent system isn't what ignorant laymen like him see to be obvious. For that one, it would be computer engineers like myself that get to make the judgement. Not only is that patent "obvious," I can not even think of any other way to do it. In fact, any design for VoIP that is NOT like that one, would be the non-obivous patentable innovation.

Large companies use the patent system to squash competition. Large companies often fight each other, simultaneously claiming the other is violating their patent on the same technology. It's a tool for an innovation plutocracy.
 
2012-04-18 01:08:02 PM

impaler: Now that lawyer above was incredulous that the VoIP patent was obvious. But the patent system isn't what ignorant laymen like him see to be obvious.


If you use my handle, then it's easier for me to see replies and respond to them.

You know, throughout this discussion, I've been quite cordial to everyone, even those I disagreed with. It's somewhat telling that you jump to name calling and insults. False ones, at that... I had 10 years of experience as a telecommunications engineer before I shifted to patent law.

The fact that you can't find any evidence from before the filing date of the patent and instead have to rely on your hindsight, more than a decade later, to claim it was supposedly obvious at the time doesn't make me an "ignorant layman". Rather, your abandonment of any actual argument and reliance on ad hominems belies the falsity of your conclusion.
 
2012-04-18 01:09:10 PM

Do the needful: Drew, I wish you would have used One Click Purchases as an example of bad patents.


Did you know that Oreilly took back his $10,000 bounty for prior art for the One-click patent, conceding that it couldn't be found and that the patent was likely valid?
 
2012-04-18 01:20:12 PM
Scratch that last one... He never conceded it, and still claims to have prior art "on his shelf" that would destroy the patent.
 
Displayed 50 of 335 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report