
Patent trolls want $1,000 per employee for using scanners - blackhole
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/
======
api
I personally hope the patent law abuse gets to the point that it destroys the
entire patent system. So go for it. Sue schools, the elderly, whatever.

~~~
vertis
And then what? We'll have nothing at all? I'm certainly not in favour of these
patent trolls but you have to have a more nuanced approach to intellectual
property than 'Burn down the House'

It's a balance between encouraging innovation by protecting intellectual
property, and discouraging it because of patent abuse (etc).

Destroying the patent system completely would most certainly have a negative
effect.

~~~
dasil003
> _Destroying the patent system completely would most certainly have a
> negative effect_

Why are you so sure of this? Government granted monopoly is not the only
incentive to create something, but there are definitely countless examples of
how patents have been used to squash innovation and disruption.

I grant that patents have had some positive effects, but I would not assume
they are net-positive. Also, they were primarily designed in a time when there
were fewer ideas and getting things into production was much more expensive
(this applies to physical things, let along software with zero marginal cost),
and it was much easier for an incumbent to steal an idea and crush a startup
simply by the barriers to entry to manufacturing and distribution. Since then
lobbying efforts have only pushed intellectual property rights in one
direction. Even medical research patents which are often held up as necessary
create perverse incentives that tie up R&D dollars in unproven new drugs, and
making arbitrary tweaks to existing newish medicines in order to secure patent
protection, making research into natural or public domain compounds come to a
standstill regardless of efficacy.

Obviously I'm biased since I work in software, but I think we'd be fine
without patents. Trademark and copyright address much more important issues in
my opinion.

~~~
wheaties
Medical treatments, vaccines, and drugs cost enormous amounts of money to
bring to market due to all the regulations and requirements we've created
ensuring a pill is not fatal. Why would any company in their right mind
develop any sort of drug if it cost $100m and anyone after them could take the
idea free of cost?

Patents are good/needed to promote the quality of medicine. There they're
good.

~~~
rdtsc
That is exactly what the drug companies say. That's funny at is as if you are
just reciting back their propaganda.

It turns out a lot more money is spent on marketing and lobbying that is spent
on research. Also a lot of cutting edge research is actually performed by
public universities by professors on that state's (or NIH's) dime.

> Patents are good/needed to promote the quality of medicine. There they're
> good.

Well that really is the crux of the argument. I would argue that patents make
the medicine worse. Medicine I also consider to be the health and well-being
of citizens not profitability of drug companies. I can be convinced that the
current patent system help the profitability of drug companies I am not sure
if it help the sick people.

~~~
dhimes
_That is exactly what the drug companies say_

Yeah, there's a reason for that.

 _It turns out a lot more money is spent on marketing and lobbying that is
spent on research._

Don't confuse pharmaceutical companies with biotech companies.

 _Also a lot of cutting edge research is actually performed by public
universities by professors on that state's (or NIH's) dime._

Often, the same researcher then spins out the company that tries to
commercialize the research.

 _I can be convinced that the current patent system help the profitability of
drug companies I am not sure if it help the sick people._

Without them you wouldn't have the medicine. Then that won't help the sick
people. As it stands, there is a difference between the medicine that rich
people can afford and that poor people can afford. That may be morally
objectionable- and maybe we should fix it. But at least the medicine exists,
and eventually it gets cheaper on average for everybody.

I am _very much_ for patent reform, but we have to do it intelligently. Where
patents help- keep them. Modify them maybe. Where they are despicable destroy
them.

At least in some cases in medicine-- as in other high barrier-to-entry
endeavors-- I am convinced they are useful. In other cases they are
infuriating.

~~~
belorn
>Often, the same researcher then spins out the company that tries to
commercialize the research.

It seems to me that you imply that there is some added value from the
commercialization. But commercialization does not cause added value in itself.
Sometimes, commercialization just mean marketing and profit center.

However the real question is, what does commercialization of an already
founded and paid invention has to do with patents. Why should research which
is paid with tax money (through NIH) be patentable, and how does that benefit
society?

~~~
dhimes
There is often substantial risk turning a research result (molecule X inhibits
virus Y) into a safe medicine. You have to do significant, expensive testing.
That is where the money is spent because that is where commercialization
fails.

~~~
sageikosa
Also, pharmaceutical drugs don't just pop out of Wonka-like machines in a
manner similar to the Everlasting Gobstopper. The production process has to be
efficient. Efficiency is a function of the cost to research, design, construct
and operate the production facilities and QA, and the expected returns.

~~~
belorn
Well, if you want efficiency, thats were all the factories with generics
lives. They use capitalism, that is competition to produce the best product
for the lowest price.

As for testing (the above comment), thats where FDA approved monopolies comes
in. FDA want to incentivize testing and producing of products, even once they
fall out of patent protection, so FDA themselves gives out limited timed
monopolies after a drug gone through all the testing. Thats a monopoly on top
of regular patents for most drugs. FDA don't assume patents to cover the cost
beyond the initial research. They consider that more incentives are needed,
targeted for testing and producing of products.

~~~
sageikosa
I wasn't disagreeing with the poster above, I was adding additional insight
into what it takes to initially commercialize a product (assuming the initial
research was publicly funded).

Before a decision to produce can begin, there is additional R&D into: \- scale
production design and cost analysis \- analysis of potential market size \-
risks and boundaries of treatment identified via clinical trials

If the potential market size and production costs work out to be marginally
profitable (to be an attractive investment): \- initial outlay of prototype
production facilities \- scale production and distribution processes (some
drugs have limited shelf life or require special handling) \- market building
(disseminating information about the treatment to health providers, and
tracking market penetration) to make sure the market potential is fully used

Production of generics is "efficient" because by the time generic production
gets underway (at patent expiration), they can sell as an alternative to a
pre-built market with processes already proven by years of practice.

~~~
belorn
What prevents generics to do cost analysis, market research, prototype
production facilities, scale production and distribution processes, and market
building? Isn't those step normal procedures for any commercial venture. To
make the car an analogy, when producing a new car, a company need to do cost
analysis to weighing materials, product facilities, prototype building. They
also need to do market building to push their product in a market already
buzzing with competition. They need to care about the distribution processes.
They can't patent this, and even if they could, I doubt the car industry would
be helped by it.

Generics, like any other form of commercial entities do prefer a pre-built
market. This is same for everyone else too, as everyone is currently making
the same pads, laptops, phones and mp3 players as last "hit product". This
however doesn't mean that there aren't any new companies trying new things.
Same goes for generics. The "putting a product into the market" is't someting
patents are needed or even suggested to cover. Its the cost of the invention
that is covered by the patents.

Patents cover the cost of inventing. The FDA granted monopoly covers the
testing. Everything else rest onto the commercial entity to resolve. This is
the order of things, through patents are so far not covering the cost of the
invention, as that is taken care by tax dollars distributed to research by
NIH.

Thus the logical thing to do is to either cut the budget of NIH and let
"patents" take care of the inventing (as intended), or reconsider patents as
funding for inventions.

~~~
sageikosa
Yes, in any normal commercial venture, those are the normal procedures for
commercializing something, which are the investment. Re-reading back to the
top of this thread, I see this spun out specifically from a one-liner about
research by professors at public universities. The funding sources for
professors at public universities is varied (depends on what funding they have
managed to gather and what strings were attached, and what they were intended
for), and the degree that the results of their research is clinically
applicable also varies. A researcher may discover that a certain receptor on a
cell's surface responds to a specific molecular structure, but this is far
from being a treatment. Depending on who funded a particular research study,
the results may be pre-assigned to a private entity, or may become public
information. It all depends on how the research was commissioned. In any case,
university researchers don't _usually_ create new drugs, they discover
relationships; they just don't typically have that mandate (as far as I am
aware, which admittedly isn't that much).

Incidentally, patents are not to cover "invention" costs, they are so that
inventors can get the rewards of invention while at the same time exposing
their invention, rewards and costs are not the same thing. For drugs, public
exposure is a necessity of the way we require FDA approval; since without such
regulation, drug related litigation would ultimately end up in open court
anyway to prove liability or negligence, it has been deemed a public good to
do this public exposure prior to market introduction, and require a degree of
pre-approval (that we assign directly to a government agency).

In the US of A, the FDA grants neither a monopoly, nor a patent. The FDA's
purpose in new drug development is the declaratory judgment regarding the
safety or applicability of a drug. It is perfectly possible to get a patent,
but fail FDA approval. It is also possible that the process to produce a drug
at scale is itself a novel application or invention and itself patentable
(though that may also need FDA approval separately from the drug treatment).

~~~
dhimes
_It is perfectly possible to get a patent, but fail FDA approval._

I believe this happened to Eli Lilly yesterday. EDIT: Not sure it was Lilly- I
heard the news on the radio this morning and I can't find the source on the
news sites. Annoying.

------
jetti
The article mentions that it is hard to invalidate patents with prior art and
that the patent holders will say that it is a narrower scope than previous
patents. If that is the case, I can't see how this isn't extortion. There is
no way that these "companies" could know the kind of network that the
companies they are sending letters to use. They may be just guessing that they
are even using a scanner. They are just mass mailing threats and hoping for
money back.

Also, how is it even legal to target the users of technology in a patent
infringement case like this? Wouldn't the manufactures (of hardware AND
software) be the ones that would need to license the patent, not end users? I
get why you would target the end user but is that legal/valid?

~~~
scott_s
I agree that it is extortion in spirit. But I wonder if patent trolls can be
prosecuted on current extortion laws, as their defense would be "We're just
trying to enforce our lawful patents." If prosecutors would not want to try,
then I wonder how we could change extortion laws to include this practice.

~~~
neurotech1
IANAL but wouldn't it be easier to convict on mail fraud first. Corporate
"accounts receivable" type scams have been convicted before of mail fraud. The
scammers send an invoice to a corporation, and if it looks routine, it gets
paid without a second thought.

Sooner or later, some patent troll is going to be dumb enough to send out
"Unpaid License Fee" letters and set a precedence on the extortion charge.

~~~
joshkaufman
Getty Images has been doing this with stock photography license claims for
years: <http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/>

------
veidr
It would help in cases like this if:

a.) the litigant was not allowed to dismiss the suit without the consent of
the defendant, and

b.) there was some mechanism whereby anybody who was subsequently sued on the
basis of the same basic claims of infringement of the same patent could use
the result of the first case as part of their defense. (E.g., unless the
original verdict was overturned on appeal, the plaintiff would have to make
some new novel claims that were not part of the original case when suing their
next victim.)

This would require changes to the law, but not nearly such drastic change as
abolishing the patent system entirely (which I think is scheduled to happen
right around the time the USA switches to the metric system).

I was the victim of a very similar shakedown tactic at the hands of DirecTV in
2002. They had hired (sorry, "successfully lobbied to obtain the services of")
the US Marshals to raid some small companies that sold smart card programming
gear. DirecTV then got their marshal pals to copy the companies' customer
databases, and then systematically went after the end users, threatening to
sue unless the users paid up $5k to 'settle'.

In my case, our company had indeed bought some smart card programming gear,
but I was incensed and inclined to fight (as it sounds like the protagonist of
this Ars story was). But the only "fight" we were able to effect was to have
our lawyers write a letter (basically, "fuck you, we program smart cards,
bring it on") to make them go away _for us_. They abandoned their threat to
sue us, but this didn't affect any of the thousands of other people they were
going after with the same exact scam.

Our patent system would be better if the law forced the litigant to a
conclusion once a patent suit was brought, and _also_ made it much harder to
repeat the same shakedown once one victim had successfully fought it and won.

That's not to say it would _fix_ the problem of patent trolls, but since it
would weaken the _patent itself_ (once somebody had the balls and money to
fight a bullshit patent shakedown and win) we wouldn't have to give a shit how
many shell companies Myrvhold and similar parasites have. (We'd only have to
give a shit that they have millions of unique B.S. patents.)

~~~
astrodust
Until the US courts have a loser pays
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorneys_fees)>) system, this
will never happen.

------
jrockway
$1,000 per employee is the most bogus request I've ever heard in my life. Even
if the concept were patentable, I'd say a reasonable demand would be $1 per
Internet-capable scanner sold.

The patent trolls should really read Joel Spolsky's guide on pricing
enterprise software. Saving $200,000 is worth hiring some lawyers to fuck you
up. Saving $75 isn't.

~~~
lutorm
I find it extremely dubious that you could actually infringe on a patent
merely by _using_ a consumer product. Disregarding this particular patent, is
that sort of claim actually grounded in fact?

~~~
rst
Well, if the product's manufacturer has licensed the patent, then the
"exhaustion doctrine" generally keeps the patent holder from taking a second
whack from people who bought it. That's what ordinarily shields end-users of
consumer products from this kind of nonsense.

If the manufacturer hasn't licensed the product, though, the users may well be
fair game, in the eyes of the law.

~~~
lutorm
But end users generally don't know and have no way of knowing what technology
is inside a product. That seems pretty sketchy. While it's true that
unintentionally infringing on a patent is not an excuse, if I'm liable for
someone else's infringing without my knowledge my potential liability is
completely unlimited.

------
astrodust
One simple reform to the patent system would be to force an _automatic_ review
of any patent involved in a lawsuit where the patent might be rendered invalid
before the court needs to weigh in on the matter.

Right now the court needs to decide if the patent is enforceable, which seems
like it's basically doing the job the patent issuing entity should've done in
the first place.

~~~
krickle
Yes! I love this. If we can reduce the cost of defending these we would
eliminate them without needing anything else.

------
pavel_lishin
> the only variations are the six-letter name of the shell company and the
> royalty demands

This sounds a lot like the automated, python-scripted corporations in Stross's
Accelerando.

~~~
unimpressive
Would that make these _literal_ shell companies?

------
krschultz
Major root cause that could be fixed without hurting anyone other than patent
trolls: the relatively anonymous registration of patents. If I'm being
threatened with a lawsuit for patent infringement, how can I not find out the
owners of the patents? That is crazy.

If you want to leverage a patent, you should have to be registered with the
patent office so that you can be held accountable. Anyone using a patent for
legit reasons wouldn't be hampered by this, but it would make hunting down
patent trolls a whole lot easier.

~~~
crusso
Plus if these patents are so valuable, then it would be nice if their sale
from one shell company to another had tax implications. Once a licensing
campaign has been initiated for one shell company, that should put some idea
of a value on the patent(s).

If you can be assessed taxes for options in a company that isn't public that
you have no way to exercise, selling assets from one shell company to another
should have tax implications as well.

Maybe that would limit the creation of mazes of ownership of these patent
portfolios.

~~~
krschultz
I really like the idea of relating the value of a patent to the registration
cost. If the patent is giving you $10 million a year in income, you should
have to pay more for that right than if it brings you $10,000 a year in
income. At least then we would have a list of patent holders and how much they
are making from licensing.

~~~
cheeseprocedure
The registration costs would need to be non-trivial to discourage abuse, which
would harm legitimate small-scale innovators. Also, who decides (or validates)
the "worth" of a patent? We would be replacing one regulatory nightmare with
another.

~~~
jakejake
I think it would be awesome but it will never happen.

You claim a value for your patent. It is treated as property and subject to
tax if transferred from one entity to the next. The catch is that you can only
sue for a certain percent of the claimed value. You can change the claimed
value of your patent, but then you must pay a tax as if that was earned
income. You would have to be allowed to set your initial claimed value of the
patent at whatever you wish. Kinda the same way that when you start a
corporation you can decide how many shares you have (like 1.000 or 10,000 or
1,000,000). But once that is set you can't just change them around without
registering the change with the state.

In theory it would punish people who transfer patents a lot, but have almost
no affect on people who register or hold onto patents. Since trolls thrive on
shell companies, it would be very expensive to constantly transfer high-value
patents.

------
downandout
In my experience, these places don't actually make any money, so fear not. I
did some database consulting work for a company that was in a similar business
a few years back. They wound up shutting down after about six weeks because no
one bothered paying them. Out of more than $12 million in demands, they
received less than $4,000 after sending their first batch. That was when they
decided to shut down. I suspect something similar will happen with these guys
and anyone that follows them.

------
padseeker
Why the heck aren't the hardware manufacturers stepping up on this one? Why
should I pay HP/Xerox/Canon/Ricoh thousands for using their manufactured
hardware when it does not cover the ability to use it?

I realize being a hacker news reader/tech person means I would know better,
but wouldn't some of these people think to themselves "Why isn't this cost
included into the hardware?". And why aren't the manufacturers that profit
from this type of hardware stepping up as it has the chance to discourage
people from buying their stuff.

------
neurotech1
Maybe I should do an AMA on my work for a patent attorney. It would get boring
because his MO seems to be to only sue companies that negotiate license deals
in "bad faith", and nowhere near the frivolous action seen in here. Most of
his work is in filing patents.

The last conversation we had was actually about supporting the EFF, so I'm
sure that is quite telling to what direction we're heading.

------
arbuge
It strikes me that one root cause of the patent troll problem, besides
unscrupulous trolls and their evil lawyers, is idiot patent examiners who
would allow patenting the process of drinking a cup of coffee of morning if
there was no prior art on file on the subject.

It all comes down to incentives. Good patent lawyers know they can make big
bucks working in private practice (possibly for trolls), whilst mediocre ones
happy with a government salary go ... where else? ... the USPTO.

~~~
wpietri
Do you have any facts to back this up? The one patent examiner I know is very
smart. But he's also part of a rigid system with very clear criteria.

If there's a problem, I suspect it's a systemic problem.

------
h4pless
Could someone (or has someone already tried to) patent the process of patent
trolling? I know that such a patent shouldn't be granted because the idea
obviously isn't original but it seems as though there are so many bogus
patents sneaking through the cracks that it could be possible. It would be
nice if there was someone you could call to troll the trolls.

~~~
cschmidt
Strangely Halliburton seems to have done this:

[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/12/halliburton-patenting-
pa...](http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/12/halliburton-patenting-patent-
trolling-to-block-patent-trolls/)

~~~
hdj
What did happen to this application? Accepted or dismissed?

~~~
verroq
Surely there's been prior art.

------
DanBC
Now we know the format of the letters I'm waiting for anonymous to send a
bunch of letters to every member of US legislature.

~~~
olefoo
Actually, it should be sent to their re-election campaign committees;
legislators themselves are considered members of the government, and would not
be considered businesses in their own right. Whereas their campaign comittees
are heavily regulated businesses that get lots of financial scrutiny and are
very short of cash usually.

Although that is a dangerous precedent to set; once you start using that sort
of tactic, it will become yet another way for big business to lock out
candidates they don't like and would have an overall chilling effect on
participation in the political process.

------
storf45
This is just disgusting. Well, here's their contact, facebook, and twitter
information if anyone wants to get in touch with them for services! Contact:
<http://www.hkw-law.com/contact> Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/hkwlaw>
Twitter: <https://twitter.com/atllawfirm>

------
jonkelly
We got hit with one of these letters. I read through it and it was clear that
we weren't actually infringing -- it only applied to the use of distribution
to employees via the scanner. Luckily that functionality is pretty much
impossible to make work on the Brother MFC that we have. We had our lawyer
send back a note saying that we weren't infringing and that was the end of it.
My guess is that showing that you are actually paying attention and have a
competent attorney is a good way to avoid getting victimized (at least some of
the time).

------
hdj
I'm not fully certain and I would love some verification/counter-argument, but
wouldn't the new Public Use Anywhere in the World aspect invalidate atleast
some of the garbage patents like the one discussed in the article?
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/11/15...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/11/15/a-powerful-
new-weapon-against-patent-trolls/)

~~~
mcherm
Not really. The difficulty of invalidating the patent isn't the real barrier
to standing up to these sorts of legal threats. The real barrier is that
_whether you win or not_ , it costs $100,000 or more to be sued in a patent
lawsuit.

Here are your choices:

(A) Pay up. The extorting patentholder charges you $80,000.

(B) Hire a lawyer to defend you in court. The lawyer charges you $100,000. You
also might lose and have to pay damages.

(C) Defend yourself in court without a specialist patent lawyer. Unless you
ARE a specialist patent lawyer, you are guaranteed to lose. Pay triple damages
plus lawyer fees -- actually, just pay everything you own and go live on the
street.

Which would you choose?

~~~
krickle
And note that C is only an option if you are being sued as an individual, if
you are being sued as a corporate entity you cannot defend your company pro
se, you must retain a licensed attorney.

~~~
mcherm
Right... good point.

------
jasimq
I don't know about the different kinds of patents, but shouldn't the printer
manufacturers be paying up licensing fees?

~~~
drstewart
The letter from the patent trolls actually explains why they don't do that
(the real reason is probably because it's easier to get a 30 person small
business to pay up instead of a giant corporation with a retainer of lawyers).

------
edouard1234567
The clock is ticking for these patent trolls, scanners will soon become
completely useless (posted on HN yesterday)
[http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/02/google-expensify-
paperless-...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/02/google-expensify-
paperless-2013/)

------
JackFr
Couldn't someone end this by gettingt a business process patent on patent
trolling?

~~~
mcherm
Doesn't help if you can't find the correct shell company to serve with the
lawsuit.

------
zalzane
I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for them to send one of these extortion
notices to the wrong guy who will get enraged enough to shoot up their office.

I wonder if a chain of such shootings would set a precedent for change.

~~~
angdis
It is amazing how much rage a story like this can produce in people who work
in non-legal professions. The law-firms involved, of course, don't see it that
way. This is just work for them-- although I can't fathom how they can sleep
at night making a living by being what amounts to a parasite.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I've worked in a situation where I believed that what I was doing was fairly
unethical. I wasn't sending out bogus legal threats, but I was doing
development work for a company I consider flat-out evil.

I dealt with it by donating all the money I made during those hours to a
relevant charity. It helped.

~~~
meric
Might need to donate more - for every $1 you got paid, the evil company
received more than $1 of benefit. ;)

------
edouard1234567
Yet another patent troll nonsense. Who needs scanners anyway... maybe people
will come to their senses and stop printing signing & scanning... a waste of
paper, energy and precision!

------
ChuckMcM
It would be interesting to see if you could pursue a case of legal malpractice
against the firm which took this case to the patent office in the first place.

~~~
mcherm
On what grounds? That law firm successfully obtained a patent which (even if
later invalidated) resulted in revenues for their client (the extortion
money). That is not malpractice, it is SUCCESSFUL practice -- and more so if
the patent is highly questionable, as it may have been the legal firm's skill
that resulted in the patent being issued.

~~~
ChuckMcM
On the same grounds that lawyers are sanctioned for bringing frivolous or
extortionate lawsuits.

I think you bring a poor strawman to the debate, its not a question of whether
or not the lawyer was successful, its a question of whether they were working
toward the betterment of the system. For example. doctors may be sued for
malpractice for performing surgeries that are unneeded even though the surgery
is completely successful. They violate the terms of their licensing in the
state where they practice by doing so.

My point is that there are many ways to mitigate the perils of the patent
system without destroying it. One is to make abuse of it to have some cost.

So a proposal might be like this [1]:

To prosecute a patent (represent an inventor as their attorney in the
application process) requires licensing by the patent licensing bar. That
license states that willfully bringing a patent before the commission that is
found later to be invalidated, and such invalidation shows negligence on the
part of the prosecuting attorney, that attorney or their firm, is co-liable
for any charges or court costs incurred by the folks who invalidated the
patent.

It would also be interesting in public shaming of people who claim to have
'invented' such preposterous things. That is a much more social thing though.

[1] I'm not a lawyer, and I know it doesn't work like this today, its a
proposal to make it 'painful' to try to game the system as a lawyer.

------
pixl97
Ob. SMBC

[http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2761#c...](http://www.smbc-
comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2761#comic)

------
hexagonc
Politicians aren't going to do anything about patent trolls until politicians
start getting threatened and/or sued by patent trolls.

------
zem
honest question - does the united states not have barratry laws? why do they
not cover cases like this?

------
mesozoic
So who has the patent on patent trolling?

~~~
gefh
IBM: [http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Se...](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20100332285.PGNR.&OS=DN/20100332285RS=DN/20100332285)

